Cited by 67Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFamily Dynamics and Relationships

Implications of coping repertoire as predictors of men's stress, anxiety and depression following pregnancy, childbirth and miscarriage: a longitudinal study

Johnson, Martin P., Baker, Sarah R.·2004·Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

The long-term implication of how men cope during a partner's pregnancy, at childbirth or following miscarriage has not received attention. This study aims to examine if men's coping response during pregnancy, at childbirth, or miscarriage predict psychological outcomes at the time of childbirth/miscarriage or 1 year later, and to establish whether there are any changes in men's coping repertoire. Utilizing a longitudinal design, 384 volunteer expectant fathers, participated by completing measures of stress, anxiety, depression and coping during their partner's pregnancy, following childbirth or miscarriage, and 1 year later. Findings indicated, at the time of childbirth/miscarriage, increases on all psychological outcomes compared to during the pregnancy, which then decreased at 1-year. During pregnancy, men relied more on approach-orientated coping, changing at pregnancy outcome to avoidant-orientated strategies. Regression revealed the best predictor of psychological outcome, in the long-term, was coping response at pregnancy outcome. However each psychological outcome had its own predictive path, varying depending on pregnancy outcome; supporting the concept that coping responses are situationally specific, changing depending on the event examined. How men cope with each aspect of their reproductive experiences may have implications for the provision of support they offer their partner, and the support they themselves need.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01674820412331282240

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Johnson, M. P., & Baker, S. R.
Affiliations
  • University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
  • Keele University (GB)
Venue
Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology
Published
2004-01
Volume
25
Issue
2
Pages
87-98
ISSN
  • 0167-482X (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-8942
OpenAlex
W2068661093
Cited by
67
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
Keywords
expectant fathers, pregnancy, childbirth, miscarriage, paternal stress, paternal anxiety, paternal depression, approach-avoidance coping, coping repertoire, partner support, reproductive experience
MeSH terms
Abortion, Spontaneous, Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Anxiety, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Labor, Obstetric, Life Change Events, Male, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Pregnancy, Surveys and Questionnaires, Severity of Illness Index, Stress, Psychological, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Depression, Postpartum

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