ArticleArchives of women's mental health2024
Identifying distinct subtypes of mother-to-infant bonding using latent profile analysis in a nationwide Japanese study.
Article in Archives of women's mental health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Editorial: Cognitive and mental health improvement under- and post-COVID-19.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMother-to-infant bonding (MIB) is foundational for nurturing behaviors and an infant's development. Identifying risk factors for difficulties or problems in MIB is vital. However, traditional research often dichotomizes MIB using cutoff thresholds, overlooking its underlying complexities. This research utilizes latent profile analysis (LPA) to discern MIB subtypes in a nationwide Japanese dataset.
methodsWe conducted LPA on data from the Mother-to-Infant Bonding Scale (MIBS), collected from 3,877 postpartum women within one year of childbirth. To empirically validate the derived profiles, we examined their associated risk factors, focusing on sociodemographic, health, and perinatal variables.
resultsFour distinct MIB profiles emerged. Profile 1 indicated minimal difficulties, while Profile 4 exhibited severe multifaceted difficulties. Profiles 2 and 3 showed moderate difficulties distinguished by lack of positive affection and presence of negative affection (especially indifference), respectively. Compared to Profile 1, women in Profiles 2-4 had a higher likelihood of postpartum depression and low family support. Each profile also presented unique risk factors: medium family support in Profile 2, maternal working status in Profile 3, and pre-pregnancy underweight status in Profile 4. Notably, both Profiles 3 and 4 were also linked to increased feelings of loneliness since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
conclusionThis study represents the first application of LPA to MIB, revealing distinct subtypes and their respective risk profiles. These insights promise to enhance and personalize early interventions for difficulties in MIB, affirming the necessity of acknowledging MIB's heterogeneity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38602553What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.