↓ Skip to main content

Prenatal Maternal Distress: A Risk Factor for Child Anxiety?

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Prenatal Maternal Distress: A Risk Factor for Child Anxiety?
Published in
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10567-017-0251-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mia A. McLean, Vanessa E. Cobham, Gabrielle Simcock

Abstract

The deleterious association between various types of prenatal maternal psychological distress (PNMS, anxiety, depression, psychological distress, stress) and childhood anxiety symptomatology (internalizing behaviors, anxiety symptoms) has been established using both retrospective and prospective longitudinal studies across varied demographic cohorts and throughout development. Yet, the existing literature cannot claim maternal distress during pregnancy to be a specific risk factor for anxiety symptomatology, as studies utilizing such observational designs are unable to adequately account for confounding of potential genetic factors and the postnatal environment. In this review, we examine studies that attempt to minimize such confounding and thus disentangle the unique intrauterine exposure effect of varying types of PNMS on childhood anxiety symptomatology. Such methodologies include paternal versus maternal comparison studies, sibling comparisons, prenatal cross-fostering designs and timing of exposure studies (including disaster studies). Of the identified studies, findings indicate that prenatal maternal distress is likely to constitute a risk factor for anxiety symptomatology, although more studies are needed to replicate current findings in order to determine whether there are clear differences in effects across specific types of PNMS and for specific subpopulations. We review the methodological limitations and strengths of the literature prior to exploring avenues of future research and implications for theory and clinical practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 135 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 12%
Student > Master 14 10%
Other 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 24 18%
Unknown 45 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 40 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 7%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Computer Science 4 3%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 53 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 February 2018.
All research outputs
#6,815,932
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
#223
of 376 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,457
of 445,937 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 376 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.6. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 445,937 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.