Cited by 222Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumAttachment and Relationship DynamicsMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 127 of the 132 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A systemic review of maternal wellbeing and its relationship with maternal fetal attachment and early postpartum bonding

Open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: An emerging body of literature suggests there is a relationship between a pregnant woman's psychological wellbeing and the development of maternal-fetal attachment (MFA) and early postpartum bonding. The nature of this relationship is not well understood because of the limited theoretical framework surrounding the construct of MFA and variations in study methods and data collection points. In this systematic review, we synthesize the published literature to determine the nature of the relationship from the antenatal to early postnatal period and to provide recommendations for future research and clinical practice. METHOD: Using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) approach, four electronic databases were searched for peer-reviewed empirical studies, published in English. Articles were considered for inclusion if data was collected on at least one domain of maternal wellbeing/mental health and MFA during pregnancy or MFA during pregnancy and the mother-infant relationship during the early postpartum period (up to 12 weeks). No date parameters were applied to the search strategy. The review was registered with PROPSERO (registration number: CRD42018096174). RESULTS: 25 studies examining maternal mental health and MFA/postpartum bonding were selected for inclusion in this review. Key findings identified from the review were: a need to validate existing mental health measures or develop new measures specific for use in antenatal populations; inconsistencies in data collection points throughout pregnancy and postpartum; a lack of consensus about the construct of MFA and the way it is assessed; and a continued focus on postpartum outcomes. CONCLUSION: Scientific gaps remain in our understanding of the relationship between maternal mental health and both MFA and postpartum bonding which limit our theoretical understanding of the MFA construct. Recommendations for future research are to employ prospective longitudinal designs that span the full pregnancy and postpartum period, and for consistency in the terminology and methodology used when considering MFA. A re-focus of research attention on the theory behind MFA will allow a richer and more holistic account of the emerging relationship between mother and baby.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0220032

Cites

127 of 127 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 132 references

5 of the 132 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. S Berra, 2008, A tool (corrected) for the critical appraisal of epidemiological cross-sectional studies, Gaceta Sanitaria, 22, 492
  2. S Marcus, 2009, Depression during pregnancy: Rates, risks and consequences, Canadian Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, 16, 15

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–222 of 222

Metadata

Authors
McNamara, J., Townsend, M. L., & Herbert, J. S.
Affiliations
University of Wollongong (AU)
Corresponding author
McNamara, Josephine
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2019-07-25
Volume
14
Issue
7
Pages
e0220032
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2963294809
Cited by
222
References
132
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 2
FWCI
19.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Keywords
maternal well-being, maternal mental health, maternal-fetal attachment, postpartum bonding, mother-infant relationship, prenatal period, early postpartum period, construct validity
MeSH terms
Maternal Health, Female, Humans, Mother-Child Relations, Pregnancy, Prospective Studies, Pregnant People, Postpartum Period

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