Perinatal (Re)experiencing of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms for Survivors of Childhood Sexual Abuse: An Integrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This integrative review aimed to synthesize both qualitative and quantitative research on the (re)experiencing of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms during the perinatal period for childhood sexual abuse (CSA) survivors. Whittemore and Knafl's framework, which includes problem identification, literature review, data evaluation, data analysis, and results dissemination, was used. A search in four databases (i.e., PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Scopus, and ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis Global) yielded an initial sample of 3420 articles. After screening and deduplication, 16 articles met our inclusion criteria (i.e., history of CSA, minimum 8 weeks pregnant, reported quantitative statistics or qualitative findings, discussed PTSD symptoms) and were retained in the final sample. CSA survivors (re)experienced PTSD symptoms as a result of (1) aspects of their medical care (vaginal examinations, male medical providers, lack of control, and restraint), (2) physical sensations during pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding, and (3) sex of the child (worries over child becoming an abuser/abused, male genitalia). CSA survivor's PTSD symptoms of intrusion, dissociation, avoidance, and hyperarousal were significantly greater throughout the perinatal period compared with individuals without CSA or with other traumas. CSA survivors are at increased risk of (re)experiencing PTSD symptoms throughout the perinatal period, which may be due to several internal and external triggers. Further research is needed to understand external triggers outside of medical care, and how the unique context of pregnancy may differ from other life contexts for survivors of CSA. Findings point to the relevance of adopting trauma-informed practices with CSA survivors during their perinatal period.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".