Preliminary Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Perinatal Mindfulness-Based Well-Being and Parenting Programs for Low-Income New Mothers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study examined specificity in the effects of three perinatal mindfulness-based prevention programs that differed in their timing (prenatal, postpartum) and target (maternal well-being, parenting). Effects on maternal mental health (depression, anxiety, resilience), mindfulness, and observed parenting, as well as observed, physiological, and mother-report indicators of infant self-regulation, were examined. Methods: = 188) living in low-income contexts using intention-to-treat analysis. Mothers were assigned to a prenatal well-being, postpartum well-being, parenting, or book control group. Multi-method assessments that included questionnaire, observational, and physiological measures were conducted at four time points: during pregnancy (T1) and when infants were 2-4 months (T2), 4-6 months (T3), and 10-12 months. Results: Compared to the postpartum intervention and control groups, the 6-week prenatal well-being intervention was related to decreases in depressive symptoms during pregnancy but not postpartum, higher maternal baseline respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA), fewer intrusive control behaviors, and lower infant cortisol levels in the early postpartum period. Compared to all other groups, the postpartum parenting intervention was related to decreases in maternal anxiety and increases in responsive parenting. Some differential effects across programs might be due to differences in attendance rates in the prenatal (62%) vs. postpartum (35%) groups. Conclusions: The findings suggest that brief mindfulness-based well-being and parenting preventive interventions can promote maternal and infant mental health in families living in low-income, high-stress settings, particularly if accessibility can be enhanced. Preregistration: This study is not preregistered.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".