Pregnancy and birth complications associations with long-term adverse maternal mental health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Existing studies have established an association between pregnancy, birth complications, and mental health in the first few weeks postpartum. However, there is no clear understanding of whether pregnancy and birth complications increase the risk of adverse maternal mental outcomes in the longer term. Research on maternal adverse mental health outcomes following pregnancy and birth complications beyond 12 months postpartum is scarce, and findings are inconsistent. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis will examine the available evidence on the association between pregnancy and birth complications and long-term adverse maternal mental health outcomes. Methods and analysis: We will include cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control studies in which a diagnosis of pregnancy and/or birth complication (preeclampsia, pregnancy loss, caesarean section, preterm birth, perineal laceration, neonatal intensive care unit admission, major obstetric haemorrhage, and birth injury/trauma) was reported and maternal mental disorders (depression, anxiety disorders, bipolar disorders, psychosis, and schizophrenia) after 12 months postpartum were the outcomes. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science will be conducted following a detailed search strategy until August 2022. Three authors will independently review titles and abstracts of all eligible studies, extract data using pre-defined standardised data extraction and assess the quality of each study using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We will use random-effects meta-analysis for each exposure and outcome variable to calculate overall pooled estimates using the generic inverse variance method. This systematic review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Ethical consideration: The proposed systematic review and meta-analysis is based on published data; ethics approval is not required. The results will be presented at scientific meetings and publish in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO registration: CRD42022359017.
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 | 0.054 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.068 | 0.007 |
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".