MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411878309 · doi:10.1186/s40359-025-03047-7

The relationship between perceived social support and fear of childbirth in pregnant women: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4411878309 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zohreh Alizadeh-Dibazari, Mahsa Maghalian, Mojgan Mirghafourvand‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Psychology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of TabrizTabriz University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsMeta-analysisPsychologyChildbirthSocial supportSocial psychologyPsychological researchSystematic reviewClinical psychologyMEDLINEPregnancyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite being a natural process, childbirth often evokes fear due to its unpredictable nature. This fear can lead to significant emotional distress and various physical and mental health complications. While social support from family, friends, and partners is thought to reduce fear, its effectiveness remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to determine the relationship between fear of childbirth and various sources of social support, including overall support, support from family, friends, and partners. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, Scopus, SID, and Google Scholar for relevant studies published through November 2024. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Subgroup analyses were performed based on study quality. To determine result robustness, two separate sensitivity analyses were carried out: one in which individual studies were sequentially removed, and another where studies using different assessment tools were excluded. Finally, the influence of maternal age, gestational age, multiparity, and pregnancy planning on outcomes was examined through meta-regression analysis. RESULTS: From 1,542 screened studies, 17 were included (n = 5,535 women). Meta-analysis revealed significant inverse correlations between fear of childbirth and both perceived social support (r = -0.23, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.05, 16 studies, 5,435 women; p = 0.01; random-effects model) and partner support (r = -0.29, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.09, 5 studies, 1,254 women; p < 0.01; random-effects model). No significant associations emerged for family (r = -0.12, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.02, 3 studies, 530 women; p = 0.10; random-effects model) or friend support (r = -0.05, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.03, 3 studies, 530 women; p = 0.22; fixed-effects model). Results varied significantly by study quality (p < 0.001) but were unaffected by maternal characteristics in meta-regression. Sensitivity analyses confirmed result stability. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that greater social support, particularly from partners, can help alleviate fear of childbirth. However, support from friends and family did not show a clear link to reduced fear. Due to limitations in the quality of the studies reviewed, further high-quality research is needed to draw definitive conclusions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.037
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.237
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC PsychologySame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207