4.0 Article

GENERAL, INTERPERSONAL, AND GENDER ROLE SPECIFIC RISK FACTORS OF POSTPARTUM DEPRESSIVE SYMPTOMS IN FATHERS

Journal

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL AND CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 38, Issue 7, Pages 545-567

Publisher

GUILFORD PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1521/jscp.2019.38.7.545

Keywords

postnatal depression; father; risk factor; cognitive vulnerability-stress model of depression; marital satisfaction; gender roles

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Paternal postnatal depression has significant negative consequences for the family and child. Still, only little attention has been paid to potential unique risk factors of depression in fathers and the theoretical grounding of such research is sparse. Method: This study examined prenatal risk factors derived from three theoretical models: the cognitive vulnerability-stress model, the interpersonal model, and the gender role risk model of paternal postnatal depression. The sample consisted of 211 expectant fathers, of whom 5.7% scored above the clinical cut-off on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, and 235 mothers were included as a reference group. Participants filled in questionnaires during pregnancy and four months postpartum. Results: The study results suggest that prenatal depressive score is the strongest risk factor for both paternal and maternal postnatal depressive symptoms. In addition, childhood separation from parents, unemployment, financial strain, and doubts about having the child were unique risk factors for paternal depressive symptoms, while lower marital satisfaction was a unique risk factor for maternal depression. Discussion: These findings highlight that beyond the strong role of prenatal depressive symptoms for both genders, specific risk factors for father depression exist. This may be informative to health care professionals in increasing the reach and prevention of depression in new fathers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available