The role of bodily experiences during pregnancy on mother and infant outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pregnancy is a transformative time for women and their bodies, and therefore thoughts and feelings and about one's own body and internal bodily sensations may understandably change during this period. Body satisfaction and interoception have been found to influence factors such as antenatal attachment (AA) and maternal mental health. However, mixed results in the literature suggest complex relationships between the bodily experience during pregnancy and outcomes, necessitating a broader investigative approach. We aim to examine the relationship between the pregnancy bodily experience and multiple mother-infant outcomes. It is hypothesised that poor bodily experiences during pregnancy will have negative impacts on these outcomes. Cross-sectional online survey data was collected from individuals at various gestations throughout pregnancy as part of a larger longitudinal study (N = 253, mean age = 32). We analysed validated measures of pregnancy body satisfaction, interoceptive sensibility, AA and mood, as well as intentions to breastfeed. Linear regressions were used to confirm findings from previous literature and a network analysis allowed for a more exploratory approach to understanding the importance of the bodily experience during pregnancy. Multiple regressions found low body satisfaction predicts higher levels of anxiety, depression and AA. A network analysis revealed relationships between body satisfaction and interoception during pregnancy and mother-infant outcomes, including depression and AA. Our results highlight the far-reaching effects of poor bodily experiences during pregnancy on a variety of outcomes. Understanding the impact of the pregnant bodily experience can help identify at-risk individuals and inform interventions.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".