Parents’ mental health after termination of pregnancy for foetal anomaly – a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS/BACKGROUND: Terminating a desired pregnancy due to foetal anomalies has been linked to significant distress. It is however less clear what long-term psychological implications the parents face in the aftermath. This systematic review aimed to explore the mental health outcomes of parents after the termination of pregnancy due to foetal anomaly (TOPFA) after gestational week 12 + 0. DESIGN/METHODS: Following the PRISMA guidelines and using the PEO (Problem, Exposure, Outcome) framework, we conducted a comprehensive search across six electronic databases. The search was restricted to English studies published since 2000. Eligible studies provided quantitative assessments of mental health outcomes post-TOPFA. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Given the heterogeneity in outcome measures, the findings were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: Of the 2261 papers identified, 11 studies (four cross-sectional and seven cohort studies) were included. Results demonstrated variations in symptoms of trauma-related stress, depressive symptoms, and grief reactions across the different studies post-TOPFA. Variations were found to be related to time since TOPFA and the difference in assessment tools used. Factors investigated as predictors of mental health outcomes, including gestational age, educational level, and religion, showed inconsistent findings, though partner support consistently correlated with lower levels of grief. Male partners, included in two studies, generally reported fewer symptoms of psychological distress. CONCLUSION: This review explores a range of mental health outcomes and highlights the need for better quality studies that consider the psychological impact of TOPFA on partners. Further, this systematic review stresses the need of standardisation in measurement tools for assessing mental health symptoms.
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 | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".