Maternal Attachment Style, Interpersonal Trauma History, and Childbirth-Related Post-traumatic Stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Childbirth-related posttraumatic stress has potentially negative and enduring consequences for the well-being of women and their families. Although research to date has identified attachment style and trauma history as individual risk factors, they have yet to be examined as integrative processes in the development and maintenance of childbirth-related posttraumatic stress. The current investigation aimed to examine whether attachment style may moderate the impact of a history of interpersonal trauma on initial levels and the rate of change in posttraumatic stress symptomatology across the first 6 months of the postpartum period. A large community sample of women were recruited from two Canadian urban hospitals. Childbirth-related posttraumatic stress symptoms were assessed longitudinally at 5 weeks, 2 months and 6 months postpartum. Latent growth curve modeling (n = 251) revealed that attachment style moderated the impact of a history of interpersonal trauma on initial levels and the rate of change in posttraumatic stress symptomatology, while controlling for other well-established psychosocial (e.g., trait anxiety, previous psychopathology, lack of perceived support) and childbirth-related (e.g., mode of birth, labor pain, subjective experience) risk factors. More secure attachment conferred resiliency and more fearful attachment conferred vulnerability among women without a history of interpersonal trauma, while more preoccupied and more dismissing attachment conferred resiliency among women with a history of interpersonal trauma. These findings highlight the importance of understanding the integrative processes among risk and protective factors underlying the development of and ability to cope with childbirth-related posttraumatic stress. Attachment style and trauma history, which can be quickly measured, should be considered as targets in antenatal screening.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".