Expectant parents’ emotions evoked by pregnancy: A longitudinal dyadic analysis of couples in the Swedish Pregnancy Panel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Holistic antenatal care requires knowledge of individuals' emotional response to pregnancy. Little is known about how a pregnant woman and her partner influence each other emotionally during a pregnancy. OBJECTIVE: This study examines six discrete emotions that expectant couples experience during pregnancy, how these emotions change mid-to late-pregnancy, and whether the partners' emotional responses influence each other. METHODS: A longitudinal dyadic study where pregnant women and their partners (1432 couples) rated the extent to which the pregnancy evoked joy, strength, security, worry, shame, and anger at pregnancy week 12-19, 22-24, and 36. Latent curve models with structured residuals identify levels of and change in these emotions over time, while accounting for between- and within-couple variance. RESULTS: Pregnancy evoked mainly joy, strength, security, and worry, and lower levels of anger and shame. Pregnant women and partners felt similar levels of joy, strength, and security, but pregnant women felt more worry, shame, and anger. There was little to no mean-level change in all six measured emotions evoked by pregnancy (between-couple change), and no reciprocal effects between the partners (within-couple change). CONCLUSIONS: Emotions in mid-pregnancy were also felt in late pregnancy. Furthermore, the pregnant woman and her partner have individual emotional trajectories. The results can assist healthcare professionals and researchers target interventions to expectant mothers and partners, specifically by understanding emotional response to pregnancy as a stable confound and by not approaching the couple as one emotional unit.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".