Postpartum Thoughts of Infant-Related Harm and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Relation to Maternal Physical Aggression Toward the Infant.

N. Fairbrother, Fanie Collardeau, S. Woody, D. Wolfe, J. Fawcett
{"title":"Postpartum Thoughts of Infant-Related Harm and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Relation to Maternal Physical Aggression Toward the Infant.","authors":"N. Fairbrother, Fanie Collardeau, S. Woody, D. Wolfe, J. Fawcett","doi":"10.4088/jcp.21m14006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Unwanted intrusive thoughts (UITs) of intentional infant-related harm are ubiquitous among new mothers and frequently raise concerns about infant safety. The purpose of this research was to assess the relation of new mothers' UITs of intentional, infant-related harm and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) with maternal aggression toward the infant and to document the prevalence of maternal aggression toward the infant.\nMethods: From a prospective, province-wide, unselected sample of 763 English-speaking postpartum women, a total of 388 participants provided data for this portion of the research. Participants completed 2 questionnaires and interviews postpartum to assess UITs of infant-related harm, OCD (based on DSM-5 criteria), and maternal aggression toward the infant. Data for this research were collected from February 9, 2014, to February 14, 2017.\nResults: Overall, few participants (2.9%; 95% CI, 1.5% to 4.7%) reported behaving aggressively toward their infant. Participants who reported UITs of intentional, infant-related harm (44.4%; 95% CI, 39.2% to 49.7%) were not more likely to report aggression toward their newborn compared with women who did not report this ideation (2.6%; 95% CI, 0.9% to 5.8%; and 3.1%; 95% CI, 1.3% to 6.2%, respectively). The same was true for women with and without OCD (1.9%; 95% CI, 0.3% to 6.4%; and 3.5%; 95% CI, 1.8% to 6.0%), respectively.\nConclusions: This study found no evidence that the occurrence of either UITs of intentional, infant-related harm or OCD is associated with an increased risk of infant harm. The prevalence of child abuse of infants in this sample (2.9%) is lower than reported in others (4%-9%). Findings provide critical and reassuring information regarding the relation between new mothers' UITs of intentional harm and risk of physical violence toward the infant.","PeriodicalId":20409,"journal":{"name":"Primary care companion to the Journal of clinical psychiatry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Primary care companion to the Journal of clinical psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4088/jcp.21m14006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Objective: Unwanted intrusive thoughts (UITs) of intentional infant-related harm are ubiquitous among new mothers and frequently raise concerns about infant safety. The purpose of this research was to assess the relation of new mothers' UITs of intentional, infant-related harm and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) with maternal aggression toward the infant and to document the prevalence of maternal aggression toward the infant. Methods: From a prospective, province-wide, unselected sample of 763 English-speaking postpartum women, a total of 388 participants provided data for this portion of the research. Participants completed 2 questionnaires and interviews postpartum to assess UITs of infant-related harm, OCD (based on DSM-5 criteria), and maternal aggression toward the infant. Data for this research were collected from February 9, 2014, to February 14, 2017. Results: Overall, few participants (2.9%; 95% CI, 1.5% to 4.7%) reported behaving aggressively toward their infant. Participants who reported UITs of intentional, infant-related harm (44.4%; 95% CI, 39.2% to 49.7%) were not more likely to report aggression toward their newborn compared with women who did not report this ideation (2.6%; 95% CI, 0.9% to 5.8%; and 3.1%; 95% CI, 1.3% to 6.2%, respectively). The same was true for women with and without OCD (1.9%; 95% CI, 0.3% to 6.4%; and 3.5%; 95% CI, 1.8% to 6.0%), respectively. Conclusions: This study found no evidence that the occurrence of either UITs of intentional, infant-related harm or OCD is associated with an increased risk of infant harm. The prevalence of child abuse of infants in this sample (2.9%) is lower than reported in others (4%-9%). Findings provide critical and reassuring information regarding the relation between new mothers' UITs of intentional harm and risk of physical violence toward the infant.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
产后婴儿相关伤害与强迫症的思考:与母亲对婴儿身体攻击的关系。
目的:新生儿蓄意伤害婴儿的侵入性思想在新生儿妈妈中普遍存在,经常引起对婴儿安全的担忧。本研究的目的是评估新妈妈故意伤害、婴儿相关伤害和强迫症(OCD)的单位与母亲对婴儿的攻击行为的关系,并记录母亲对婴儿的攻击行为的普遍性。方法:从一个前瞻性的、全省范围的、未选择的763名说英语的产后妇女样本中,共有388名参与者为这部分研究提供了数据。参与者完成了2份问卷和产后访谈,以评估婴儿相关伤害、强迫症(基于DSM-5标准)和母亲对婴儿的攻击。本研究的数据收集时间为2014年2月9日至2017年2月14日。结果:总体而言,很少有参与者(2.9%;95%置信区间,1.5%至4.7%)报告对婴儿有攻击性行为。报告有故意的婴儿相关伤害的受试者(44.4%;95% CI, 39.2%至49.7%)与没有报告这种想法的妇女相比,不太可能报告对新生儿的攻击(2.6%;95% CI, 0.9% ~ 5.8%;和3.1%;95% CI,分别为1.3%至6.2%)。有或没有强迫症的女性也是如此(1.9%;95% CI, 0.3% ~ 6.4%;和3.5%;95% CI, 1.8% ~ 6.0%)。结论:本研究没有发现任何证据表明蓄意的、与婴儿相关的伤害或强迫症的发生与婴儿伤害风险增加有关。该样本中虐待婴儿的发生率(2.9%)低于其他样本(4%-9%)。研究结果提供了关于新妈妈故意伤害单位与婴儿身体暴力风险之间关系的关键和令人放心的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Emerging Perspectives in Addiction Psychiatry. Emerging Therapies for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Charles Bowden, MD, 1938-2022. In Memoriam: Jan Fawcett, MD, 1934-2022. The Relationship Between Mental Pain, Suicide Risk, and Childhood Traumatic Experiences: Results From a Multicenter Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1