Maternal postpartum depression and responsive feeding in the first 2 years: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maternal postpartum depression can influence caregiving behaviors, including the ability to practice responsive feeding. Responsive feeding promotes children's autonomy over their hunger and satiety and can lead to proper growth and development, whereas non-responsive feeding practices such as pressuring or controlling feeding tend to override children's cues, instilling unfavourable behaviors and increasing the risk of overfeeding and altered growth. Responsive feeding may be especially important during the first two years, a crucial period of learning, growth, and development. This review summarizes current literature exploring the association between maternal postpartum depression and feeding behaviors among children aged 0-24 months. Twelve studies from the USA, Australia, China, India, the UK, and the Caribbean explored this relationship. The prevalence of postpartum depression varied widely, from 10 % to 60 % of participants. In general, maternal postpartum depression symptoms were associated with non-responsive feeding, particularly with pressuring or forceful feeding styles involving high control, but also with actions in contrast with public health recommendations such as adding cereal to bottles. Most studies employed the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) to screen for maternal postpartum depression, while there was a lack of consistency in tools used to assess feeding styles, highlighting the need for a more consistent definition and standardized tool in future research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".