Psychological interventions to improve parental wellbeing after fetal abnormality diagnosis: a systematic scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antenatal diagnoses of foetal abnormalities are associated with significant psychological distress for parents. This scoping review aims to identify and synthesise the existing literature on antenatally delivered psychological interventions for parents designed to support mental wellbeing following a foetal abnormality diagnosis. METHODS: A prospectively registered protocol guided this scoping review, utilising methodologies outlined by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and Levac et al. (2010). A systematic search was conducted using five electronic databases (PsycINFO, CINAHL, Medline, SCOPUS and ProQuest) with no date limits, including studies up to June 2024. Data was extracted following the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and synthesised using narrative synthesis. RESULTS: = 1). Interventions incorporated approaches such as cognitive behavioural therapy, acceptance and commitment therapy, mindfulness and counselling. Individual support was the predominant approach across studies. All interventions were hospital-based, delivered by healthcare professionals, including psychologists, nurses and cardiologists, with formats ranging from single sessions to multi-session programmes. Most targeted anxiety and depressive symptoms, while some addressed stress, emotional preparedness, and decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Antenatally delivered psychological interventions are emerging, but the evidence base remains limited. Future interventions should be tailored to meet individual needs, offer flexible delivery, and encourage multidisciplinary collaboration. Additionally, addressing both individual and systemic factors should be prioritised in the development of future interventions, as this may enhance feasibility, reach and impact.
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 | 0.016 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".