Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30419842›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2018

Associations between social support, mental wellbeing, self-efficacy and technology use in first-time antenatal women: data from the BaBBLeS cohort study.

Samuel Ginja, Jane Coad, Elizabeth Bailey, Sally Kendall, Trudy Goodenough, Samantha Nightingale, Jane Smiddy, Crispin Day, Toity Deave, Raghu Lingam

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. The Influence of Loneliness, Social Support and Income on Mental Well-Being.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Young women's social support networks during pregnancy in Soweto, South Africa.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Towards a mother-centred maternal health promotion.Health promotion international · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Samuel GinjaSchool of Psychology, Ulster University, Cromore Road, Coleraine, Co., Londonderry, BT52 1SA, UK.
Jane CoadCentre for Innovative Research Across the Life Course (CIRAL), Faculty of Health & Life Sciences, Coventry University, Priory Street, Coventry, CV1 5FB, UK.
Elizabeth BaileyCentre for Innovative Research Across the Life Course (CIRAL), Faculty of Health & Life Sciences, Coventry University, Priory Street, Coventry, CV1 5FB, UK.
Sally KendallCentre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NF, UK.
Trudy GoodenoughCentre for Child & Adolescent Health, University of the West of England Bristol, Oakfield House, Oakfield Grove, Clifton, Bristol, BS8 2BN, UK.
Samantha NightingaleCentre for Innovative Research Across the Life Course (CIRAL), Faculty of Health & Life Sciences, Coventry University, Priory Street, Coventry, CV1 5FB, UK.
Jane SmiddyNursing, Midwifery and Health, Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Coach Lane Campus, Benton, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE7 7XA, UK.
Crispin DayDepartment of Psychology, Child & Adolescent Mental Health Service Research Unit, King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AB, UK.
Toity DeaveCentre for Child & Adolescent Health, University of the West of England Bristol, Oakfield House, Oakfield Grove, Clifton, Bristol, BS8 2BN, UK.
Raghu LingamPopulation Child Health Research Group, Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. R.lingam@unsw.edu.au.

Funding

Big Lottery via Best Beginnings NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInformation and communication technologies are used increasingly to facilitate social networks and support women during the perinatal period. This paper presents data on how technology use affects the association between women's social support and, (i) mental wellbeing and, (ii) self-efficacy in the antenatal period.

methodsData were collected as part of an ongoing study - the BaBBLeS study - exploring the effect of a pregnancy and maternity software application (app) on maternal wellbeing and self-efficacy. Between September 2016 and February 2017, we aimed to recruit first-time pregnant women at 12-16 gestation weeks in five maternity sites across England and asked them to complete questionnaires. Outcomes included maternal mental wellbeing (Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale), and antenatal self-efficacy (antenatal version of the Tool to Measure Parenting Self-Efficacy). Other variables assessed were perceived social support (Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support), general technology use (adapted from Media and Technology Usage and Attitudes Scale). Potential confounders were age, ethnicity, education, socioeconomic deprivation, employment, relationship status and recruitment site. Linear regression models were developed to analyse the relationship between social support and the outcomes.

resultsParticipants (n = 492, median age = 28 years) were predominantly white British (64.6%). Half of them had a degree or higher degree (49.3%), most were married/living with a partner (83.6%) and employed (86.2%). Median (LQ-UQ) overall scores were 81.0 (74.0-84.0) for social support (range 12-84), 5.1 (4.7-5.4) for technology use (range 1-6), 54.0 (48.0-60.0) for mental well-being (range 14-70), and 319.0 (295.5-340) for self-efficacy (range 0-360). Social support was significantly associated with antenatal mental well-being adjusting for confounders [adj R

conclusionsSocial support is associated with mental well-being and self-efficacy in antenatal first-time mothers. This association was not significantly affected by general technology use as measured in our survey. Future work should investigate whether pregnancy-specific technologies yield greater potential to enhance the perceived social support, wellbeing and self-efficacy of antenatal women.

Indexed as

Self EfficacySocial SupportAdultCohort StudiesEnglandFemaleHumansLinear ModelsMental HealthParityPregnancyPregnant PeopleTechnologyAntenatalPregnancySelf-efficacySocial supportTechnology useWellbeing

Identifiers

PMID30419842
PMCPMC6233574

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.