No abstract

Background Corona Virus Disease 19 (COVID-19) is a new pandemic, declared a public health emergency by the World Health Organization, which could have negative consequences for pregnant and postpartum women. The scarce evidence published to date suggests that perinatal mental health has deteriorated since the COVID-19 outbreak. However, the few studies published so far have some limitations, such as a cross-sectional design and the omission of important factors for the understanding of perinatal mental health, including governmental restriction measures and healthcare practices implemented at the maternity hospitals. Within the Riseup-PPD COST Action, a study is underway to assess the impact of COVID-19 in perinatal mental health. The primary objectives are to (1) evaluate changes in perinatal mental health outcomes; and (2) determine the risk and protective factors for perinatal mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, we will compare the results between the countries participating in the study. Methods This is an international prospective cohort study, with a baseline and three follow-up assessments over a six-month period. It is being carried out in 11 European countries (Albania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Greece, Israel, Malta, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom), Argentina, Brazil and Chile. The sample consists of adult pregnant and postpartum women (with infants up to 6 months of age). The assessment includes measures on COVID-19 epidemiology and public health measures (Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker dataset), Coronavirus Perinatal Experiences (COPE questionnaires), psychological distress (BSI-18), depression (EPDS), anxiety (GAD-7) and post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSD checklist for DSM-V). Discussion This study will provide important information for understanding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on perinatal mental health and well-being, including the identification of potential risk and protective factors by implementing predictive models using machine learning techniques. The findings will help policymakers develop suitable guidelines and prevention strategies for perinatal mental health and contribute to designing tailored mental health interventions. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04595123.

Emotion over‐regulation in infancy has seldom been the focus of empirical research. This study analysed the specificities of over‐regulation when compared with under‐regulation (maladaptive) and adaptive regulation by testing its association with attachment, dyadic emotional interaction, and temperament. The sample consisted of 52 low‐risk mother–infant dyads. During a home visit, dyadic emotional interaction was assessed in the daily routines and free play of 10‐month‐old infants. The infant's emotion regulation was assessed using the Shape Sorter Task, and a temperament questionnaire was completed by the mother. Attachment was assessed at 12 or 16 months using the Strange Situation. As hypothesized, (i) emotion over‐regulation (versus adaptive regulation) was predicted by a lower quality of dyadic emotional interaction and marginally by avoidant attachment; (ii) over‐regulation (versus under‐regulation) was predicted by avoidant attachment; and (iii) the predictive role of avoidant attachment was substantiated after controlling for another measure of mother–infant interaction. Contrary to expectations, temperament did not distinguish between emotion regulation styles. The link between over‐regulation and lower quality of mother–infant emotional interaction and avoidant attachment was demonstrated. There is empirical support to the claim that it is possible to identify emotion over‐regulation in infancy and that it is a maladaptive style of emotion regulation. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract

The precise nature of the relation between adult mentalizing abilities and parental representations of the child as a mental agent (mind-mindedness) is under current debate. While some authors state that it is the same competence expressed in different contexts, others assert that they are different constructs. This study examined the relation between mentalizing and mind-mindedness, in mothers and fathers, while investigating their potential links to socio-demographic, parental, and child variables. Participants were 74 families comprising of mother, father, and their preschool-aged child. Controlling for educational level, psychopathological symptoms, and children’s reported temperament, the relation between mentalizing and mind-mindedness was non-significant. Moreover, mentalizing and mind-mindedness were shown to have distinct correlates, supporting the proposal that they are two distinct constructs.