CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 140Attachment and Relationship DynamicsMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumFamily Dynamics and Relationships

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of maternal–and paternal–fetal attachment in Turkish couples

Ustunsoz, A., Guvenc, G., Akyuz, A., Oflaz, F.·2010·Midwifery
DOI 10.1016/j.midw.2009.12.006
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective to compare maternal-fetal attachment (MFA) and paternal-fetal attachment (PFA) in terms of selected variables.Design cross-sectional study.Setting three training hospitals in Ankara, Turkey. The study was performed between December 2005 and March 2006.Participants a total of 144 pregnant women and 144 partners participated in the study; the response rate was 98%.Findings there was a statistically significant difference between MFA and PFA scores (p<0.001). A comparison of MFA and PFA scores according to the selected variables (education, employment status, planning of pregnancy, pregnancy risk status) revealed that the MFA scores for pregnant women were significantly higher than the PFA scores of their partners, except for unemployed partners. The MFA (rho=-0.24, p<0.004) and PFA (rho=-0.32, p<0.001) scores decreased with increasing age of both pregnant women and their partners.Key conclusions and implications for practice although partners have lower fetal attachment scores than pregnant women, it is important to recognise factors influencing the attachment of the mother and father towards their fetus. Prenatal midwives and nurses are in a unique position to assess attachment and to intervene to promote attachment behaviours.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.midw.2009.12.006

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Ustunsoz, 2001, Sağlıklı ve yüksek riskli gebelerde prenatal bağlılığın karşılaştırılması [Comparing prenatal attachment in healthy pregnant and high-risk pregnant women], Gulhane Medical Journal, 43, 62

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 140

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Ustunsoz, A., Guvenc, G., Akyuz, A., & Oflaz, F.
Affiliations
Gülhane Askerî Tıp Akademisi (TR)
Corresponding author
Ustunsoz, A.
ORCID
Oflaz, F.
Venue
Midwifery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-04
Volume
26
Issue
2
Pages
e1-e9
ISSN
0266-6138 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.midw.2009.12.006
OpenAlex
W2127601255
Cited by
140
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Midwifery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
Keywords
maternal-fetal attachment, prenatal attachment, pregnant women, partners, paternal involvement in pregnancy, maternal age, pregnancy planning, prenatal nursing
MeSH terms
Adult, Father-Child Relations, Female, Humans, Male, Mother-Child Relations, Object Attachment, Paternal Behavior, Personality Inventory, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Complications, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Social Support, Socioeconomic Factors, Turkey, Maternal-Fetal Relations, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review