Associations between maternal psychological distress and mother-infant bonding: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Maternal psychological distress and mother-infant bonding problems each predict poorer offspring outcomes. They are also related to each other, yet the extensive literature reporting their association has not been meta-analysed. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, ProQuest DTG, and OATD for English-language peer-reviewed and grey literature reporting an association between mother-infant bonding, and multiple indicators of maternal psychological distress. RESULTS: We included 133 studies representing 118 samples; 99 samples (110,968 mothers) were eligible for meta-analysis. Results showed concurrent associations across a range of timepoints during the first year postpartum, between bonding problems and depression (r = .27 [95% CI 0.20, 0.35] to r = .47 [95% CI 0.41, 0.53]), anxiety (r = .27 [95% CI 0.24, 0.31] to r = .39 [95% CI 0.15, 0.59]), and stress (r = .46 [95% CI 0.40, 0.52]). Associations between antenatal distress and subsequent postpartum bonding problems were mostly weaker and with wider confidence intervals: depression (r = .20 [95% CI 0.14, 0.50] to r = .25 [95% CI 0.64, 0.85]), anxiety (r = .16 [95% CI 0.10, 0.22]), and stress (r = .15 [95% CI - 0.67, 0.80]). Pre-conception depression and anxiety were associated with postpartum bonding problems (r = - 0.17 [95% CI - 0.22, - 0.11]). CONCLUSION: Maternal psychological distress is associated with postpartum mother-infant bonding problems. Co-occurrence of psychological distress and bonding problems is common, but should not be assumed. There may be benefit in augmenting existing perinatal screening programs with well-validated mother-infant bonding measures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| 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".