Parental Depressive Symptoms and Infant Sleeping Arrangements: The Contributing Role of Parental Expectations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Studies describing the link between infant sleeping arrangements and postpartum maternal depressive symptoms have led to inconsistent findings. However, expectations regarding these sleeping arrangements were rarely taken into consideration. Furthermore, very few studies on pediatric sleep have included fathers. Therefore, the aims of this study were (1) to compare maternal and paternal attitudes regarding co-sleeping arrangements and (2) to explore the associations among sleeping arrangements, the discrepancy between expected and actual sleeping arrangements, and depressive symptoms, in mothers and fathers. General attitudes about co-sleeping, sleeping arrangements and the discrepancy between expected and actual sleeping arrangements were assessed using the Sleep Practices Questionnaire (SPQ) in 92 parents (41 couples and 10 parents who participated alone in the study) of 6-month-old infants. Parental depressive symptoms were measured with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D). Within the same couple, mothers were generally more supportive than fathers of a co-sleeping arrangement (p < 0.01). Multivariate linear mixed model analyses showed that both mothers’ and fathers’ depressive symptoms were significantly associated with a greater discrepancy between the expected and actual sleeping arrangement (small to moderate effect size) (p < 0.05) regardless of the actual sleeping arrangement. These findings shed new light on the conflicting results concerning the link between co-sleeping and parental depressive symptoms reported in the literature. Researchers and clinicians should consider not only actual sleeping arrangements, but also parents’ expectations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".