Exploring the relationship between breastfeeding and psychological well-being after traumatic childbirth: a secondary analysis of the PERCEIVE study data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The relation between maternal mental health and breastfeeding is complex, with breastfeeding often associated with improved well-being.Objective This study investigates associations between breastfeeding outcomes and psychological well-being in women with traumatic birth experience (TBE).Methods This exploratory secondary analysis utilized data from the PERCEIVE randomized controlled trial, which assessed the effectiveness of early eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy on posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms after TBE. Women with self-reported TBE (n = 143) were recruited between 2020 and 2023 from a hospital and midwifery practices in the Netherlands. Breastfeeding status was assessed at two (T0) and nine (T1) weeks postpartum. Outcomes were assessed using validated questionnaires on mother‒infant bonding (PBQ), PTSD symptoms (PCL−5), depression (EPDS), fear of childbirth (W-DEQ-B), and quality of life (WHOQOL-BREF).Results Among 143 participants, 126 initiated breastfeeding. At T0, breastfeeding women reported fewer symptoms of mother‒infant bonding difficulties, compared with non-breastfeeding women, p = 0.004. At T1, descriptive analyses found that participants who stopped breastfeeding reported more PTSD and depression symptoms.Conclusions Our findings suggest that breastfeeding enhances mother–infant bonding after TBE. The weaker bonding reported in nonbreastfeeding participants, coupled with possible poorer mental health outcomes, underscores the need for targeted interventions to support breastfeeding and bonding in this population.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".