Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37248450›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2023

Measuring resilience and stress during pregnancy and its relation to vulnerability and pregnancy outcomes in a nulliparous cohort study.

Anic C Alves, Renato T Souza, Jussara Mayrink, Rafael B Galvao, Maria L Costa, Francisco E Feitosa, Edilberto A Rocha Filho, Débora F Leite, Ricardo P Tedesco, Danielly S Santana and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Positive psychology interventions during pregnancy: A systematic review.Applied psychology. Health and well-being · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

15 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Anic C AlvesDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), 101 Alexander Fleming, Cidade Universitária, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Renato T SouzaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), 101 Alexander Fleming, Cidade Universitária, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Jussara MayrinkDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), 101 Alexander Fleming, Cidade Universitária, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Rafael B GalvaoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), 101 Alexander Fleming, Cidade Universitária, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Maria L CostaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), 101 Alexander Fleming, Cidade Universitária, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Francisco E FeitosaFederal University of Ceará, Fortaleza, CE, Brazil.
Edilberto A Rocha FilhoDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Medical Sciences School, Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil.
Débora F LeiteDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Medical Sciences School, Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil.
Ricardo P TedescoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jundiaí Medical School, Jundiaí, SP, Brazil.
Danielly S SantanaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jundiaí Medical School, Jundiaí, SP, Brazil.
Karayna G FernandesDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jundiaí Medical School, Jundiaí, SP, Brazil.
Maria J MieleDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), 101 Alexander Fleming, Cidade Universitária, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Joao P SouzaDepartment of Social Medicine, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
Jose G CecattiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), 101 Alexander Fleming, Cidade Universitária, Campinas, SP, Brazil. cecatti@unicamp.br.
MAESI Study Group
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) · BRFaculdade de Medicina de Jundiaí · BRUniversidade Federal de Pernambuco · BRUniversidade de São Paulo · BRUniversidade Federal do Ceará · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResilience reflects coping with pregnancy-specific stress, including physiological adaptations of the maternal organism or factors arising from the socioeconomic context, such as low income, domestic violence, drug and alcohol use, lack of a support network and other vulnerability characteristics. Resilience is a dynamic characteristic that should be comparatively evaluated within a specific context; its association with perceived stress and social vulnerability during pregnancy is still not fully understood. This study aimed at exploring maternal resilience, perceived stress and social vulnerability during pregnancy and its associated factors and outcomes.

methodsProspective multicenter cohort study of nulliparous women in Brazil determining resilience (Resilience Scale; RS) and stress (Perceived Stress Scale; PSS) at 28 weeks of gestation (± 1 week). Resilience and stress scores were compared according to sociodemographic characteristics related to maternal/perinatal outcomes and social vulnerability, defined as having low level of education, being adolescent, without a partner or ethnicity other than white.

resultsWe included 383 women who completed the RS and PSS instruments. Most women showed low resilience scores (median: 124.0; IQR 98-143). Women with a low resilience score (RS < 125) were more likely from the Northeast region, adolescents, other than whites, did not study or work, had a low level of education, low family income and received public antenatal care. Higher scores of perceived stress were shown in the Northeast, other than whites, at low levels of education, low annual family income and public antenatal care. Pregnant women with low resilience scores (n = 198) had higher perceived stress scores (median = 28) and at least one vulnerability criterion (n = 181; 91.4%).

conclusionOur results reinforce the role of resilience in protecting women from vulnerability and perceived stress. It may prevent complications and build a positive experience during pregnancy.

Indexed as

Pregnancy OutcomePregnant PeopleResilience, PsychologicalStress, PsychologicalAdolescentAnxietyBrazilCohort StudiesFemaleGestational AgeHumansParityPregnancyPregnancy Trimester, SecondPrenatal CareProspective StudiesPregnancyResilienceScaleStressValidationVulnerability

Identifiers

PMID37248450
PMCPMC10226234
OpenAlexW4378619904

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.