Psychosocial Impact on Mothers Receiving Expanded Newborn Screening Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expanded newborn screening (NBS) for genetic disorders has improved diagnosis of numerous treatable diseases, positively impacting children's health outcomes. However, research about the psychological impact of expanded NBS on families, especially mothers, has been mixed. Our study examined associations between maternal experiences of expanded NBS and subsequent psychosocial functioning and parenting stress in mothers whose infants received either true negative (TN), true positive (TP) or false positive (FP) results after a 4- to 6-month period. The Parenting Stress Index and the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale were used to assess symptoms of anxiety, stress and depression in 3 sets of mothers, whose infants received TN (n = 31), TP (n = 8) or FP (n = 18) results. Multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) results revealed no significant differences among these three groups of mothers regarding overall anxiety, stress and depression. However, FP mothers experienced lower levels of stress related to their own health compared to TN group. Two potential trends were also identified; results suggested TN mothers might experience higher levels of isolation than mothers in the TP group and that FP mothers might report higher stress levels in relation to spousal relationships compared to the TN group. FP mothers seemed to report similar or better levels of psychosocial functioning than TN mothers. Our findings are encouraging with respect to impacts of NBS on maternal well-being. We also identify key areas for improvement (parental education) and research (isolation and spousal relationships).
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".