Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36398060›Full record

ArticleClinical psychology in Europe2020

Repetitive Negative Thinking and Interpretation Bias in Pregnancy.

Colette R Hirsch, Frances Meeten, Calum Gordon, Jill M Newby, Debra Bick, Michelle L Moulds

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical psychology in Europe, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Colette R Hirsch *Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3579-2418
Frances Meeten *School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Sussex, United Kingdom.
Calum GordonInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Jill M NewbySchool of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Debra BickWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Michelle L MouldsSchool of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
King's College London · GBBlack Dog Institute · AUUniversity of Sussex · GBUniversity of Warwick · GBUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Repetitive negative thinking (RNT; e.g., worry about the future, rumination about the past) and the tendency to interpret ambiguous information in negative ways (interpretation bias) are cognitive processes that play a maintaining role in anxiety and depression, and recent evidence has demonstrated that interpretation bias maintains RNT. In the context of perinatal mental health, RNT has received minimal research attention (despite the fact that it predicts later anxiety and depression), and interpretation bias remains unstudied (despite evidence that it maintains depression and anxiety which are common in this period). Method: We investigated the relationship between RNT, interpretation bias and psychopathology (depression, anxiety) in a pregnant sample (n = 133). We also recruited an age-matched sample of non-pregnant women (n = 104), to examine whether interpretation bias associated with RNT emerges for ambiguous stimuli regardless of its current personal relevance (i.e., pregnancy or non-pregnancy-related). Results: As predicted, for pregnant women, negative interpretation bias, RNT, depression and anxiety were all positively associated. Interpretation bias was evident to the same degree for material that was salient (pregnancy-related) and non-salient (general), and pregnant and non-pregnant women did not differ. RNT was associated with interpretation bias for all stimuli and across the full sample. Conclusion: Our findings highlight the need to further investigate the impact of interpretation bias in pregnant women, and test the effectiveness of interventions which promote positive interpretations in reducing RNT in the perinatal period.

Indexed as

interpretation biasperinatal mental healthpregnancyrepetitive thinkingworry

Identifiers

PMID36398060
PMCPMC9645466
OpenAlexW3117184757

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.