SynthesisPloS one2024
Childhood abuse and perinatal outcomes for mother and child: A systematic review of the literature.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring perinatal mental well-being: a concept analysis from conception to one year postpartum.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Review
- An integrative review of how midwives are screening and assessing for trauma in women within perinatal services.PloS one · 2025Review
- Examining the interplay of childhood abuse, bullying, and bullying victimization in middle school students: a serial mediation analysis.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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Childhood abuse can have long-term adverse outcomes in adulthood. These outcomes may pose a particular threat to the health and well-being of perinatal women; however, to date, this body of knowledge has not been systematically collated and synthesized. This systematic review examined the child abuse literature and a broad range of perinatal outcomes using a comprehensive search strategy. The aim of this review was to provide a clearer understanding of the distinct effect of different abuse types and areas where there may be gaps in our knowledge. Following PRISMA guidelines, EBSCO, PsychInfo, Scopus, Medline, CINAHL, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases and gray literature including preprints, dissertations and theses were searched for literature where childhood abuse was associated with any adverse perinatal outcome between 1969 and 2022. Exclusion criteria included adolescent samples, abuse examined as a composite variable, editorials, letters to the editor, qualitative studies, reviews, meta-analyses, or book chapters. Using an assessment tool, two reviewers extracted and assessed the methodological quality and risk of bias of each study. From an initial 12,384 articles, 95 studies were selected, and the outcomes were categorized as pregnancy, childbirth, postnatal for the mother, and perinatal for mother and child. The prevalence of childhood abuse ranged from 5-25% with wide variability (physical 2-78%, sexual 2-47%, and emotional/psychological 2-69%). Despite some consistent findings relating to psychological outcomes (i.e., depression and PTSD), most evidence was inconclusive, effect sizes were small, or the findings based on a limited number of studies. Inconsistencies in findings stem from small sample sizes and differing methodologies, and their diversity meant studies were not suitable for a meta-analysis. Research implication include the need for more rigorous methodology and research in countries where the prevalence of abuse may be high. Policy implications include the need for trauma-informed care with the Multi-level Determinants of Perinatal Wellbeing for Child Abuse Survivors model a useful framework. This review highlights the possible impacts of childhood abuse on perinatal women and their offspring and areas of further investigation. This review was registered with PROSPERO in 2021 and funded by an internal grant from Charles Sturt University.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.