The study reported here is part of a critical realist multilevel study. It seeks to identify and explain complex perinatal contextual social and psychosocial mechanisms that may influence the developmental origins of health and disease, with a focus on the role of postnatal depression. The aims of the greater study are to: (1) describe the phenomenon of postnatal depression in South Western Sydney; and (2) identify mechanisms that would add to our understanding of the psycho-social causes of maternal depression. This paper will move beyond our previous quantitative descriptions of individual-level predictors of depressive symptoms by seeking the views of local mothers and practitioners, to explain the mechanisms that might be involved. The study was set in South Western Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. An Explanatory Theory Building Method was used. The previously reported quantitative study was a non-linear principal component analysis and logistic regression study of 15,389 months delivering in 2002 and 2003. This intensive qualitative study used open coding of interviews, of seven practitioners and three naturally occurring mothers groups, to enable maximum emergence. The theoretical concepts identified were: attachment and nurturing, infant temperament, unplanned pregnancy and sole parenthood, support for mothers, access to services, stress, financial hardship, isolation and marginalisation, mothers' "loss of control" and "power", and expectations and dreams. Being alone and expectations lost emerged as possible triggers of stress and depression for mothers. These findings might also apply to others who have their dreams shattered during life's transitions. In these situations social and cultural context can either nurture and support or marginalise and isolate. The challenge for policy and practice is to support mothers and their partners during the transition to parenthood within a challenging social and material context.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 December 2015.
All research outputs
#14,829,358
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#835
of 1,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,162
of 281,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#47
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 281,504 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
