Parental anxiety and offspring development: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parental anxiety has been associated with increased risk of emotional and behavioural problems for offspring, yet the differing impact of each parent is unclear. As emotional disorders continue to present a significant challenge to the health system and with the role of mothers and fathers changing over the past two decades, we sought to systematically review the available literature for an association between parental anxiety and offspring suboptimal outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase; PsycINFO and Google Scholar. Reference lists of the included papers were also searched. Data was analysed and grouped based on offspring age. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included in this review. Results suggest that both parents' mental health can impact negatively on the functioning of offspring, during infancy, childhood, and adolescence. This association is weak in infancy, with equivocal results, however the association in childhood appears robust for both mothers and fathers. In adolescence, the findings suggest that maternal anxiety may be more influential than paternal anxiety. LIMITATIONS: As the methodology of the included studies was heterogenous, and the timing of assessment varied across the papers, drawing concrete conclusions from the existing research is somewhat impaired. CONCLUSIONS: Both mothers' and fathers' anxiety have the propensity to negatively impact on their child's development. Implementing preventative interventions, which include both parents, as well as systemic interventions, which include the whole family, are essential in stemming the intergenerational transmission of mental health problems within families.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".