Antenatal pain, intimate partner violence, and maternal bonding disorder: data from the Japan Environment and Children's Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: This prospective study examined (1) whether antenatal pain is associated with postnatal maternal bonding disorder (MBD) through postnatal depression and (2) whether intimate partner violence (IPV) has a moderating effect on the association between antenatal pain and postnatal MBD. We analyzed 77,326 pregnancies of women who completed self-report questionnaires including the SF-8 bodily pain item, the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, the Mother-to-Infant Bonding Scale, and an assessment of IPV. We conducted a mediation analysis to assess whether postnatal depression mediated the association between antenatal pain and MBD 1 year after delivery. A moderated mediation model was used to examine the conditional effect of IPV during pregnancy on the association between antenatal pain and postnatal MBD, operating through postnatal depression. All analyses were adjusted for demographic factors, socioeconomic factors, perinatal and infant factors, medical history, and psychological status. Of the 77,326 pregnancies, 5420 (7.0%) were characterized by persistent moderate-to-severe pain. The total effect of antenatal pain on MBD was significant (standardized path coefficient = 0.06, 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.06) and postnatal depression dominantly mediated the association between antenatal pain and postnatal MBD (70.8% mediation). Contrary to our hypothesis, IPV during pregnancy did not moderate the association between antenatal pain and postnatal MBD. However, IPV during pregnancy did have independent negative effects on both postnatal depression and MBD. Our findings suggest that antenatal pain and postnatal depression should be assessed and treated with consideration of the presence of IPV during pregnancy to better monitor and prevent the development of MBD.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".