Abstract
-
Purpose
Prenatal depression affects 10%–25% of pregnant women and has important implications for maternal and neonatal health. High-risk pregnant women may be particularly vulnerable to anxiety and depression because of obstetric complications and concerns about fetal health. This study examined factors related to prenatal depression among hospitalized high-risk pregnant women, focusing on resilience, pregnancy stress, and marital satisfaction.
-
Methods
A descriptive cross-sectional survey was conducted among 169 high-risk pregnant women admitted to a tertiary hospital in South Korea. Data were collected using validated instruments that measured pregnancy stress, marital satisfaction, resilience, and prenatal depression. Hierarchial regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with prenatal depression.
-
Results
The mean prenatal depression score was 8.75±5.54, and 43.8% of participants had mild to severe depression. The regression model explained 37.4% of the variance in prenatal depression (F=21.07, p<.001). Resilience showed the strongest protective association (β=−.43, p<.001), followed by pregnancy stress as a significant risk factor (β=.26, p<.001) and desire for pregnancy as a significant predictor (β=−.16, p=.018). Marital satisfaction and experience of infertility treatment were not significant independent predictors.
-
Conclusion
Resilience and pregnancy stress were key factors related to prenatal depression among hospitalized high-risk pregnant women. Interventions that strengthen resilience and reduce pregnancy-related stress may help prevent and manage prenatal depression in this population.
-
Key words: Depression; High-risk pregnancy; Resilience; Psychological stress
INTRODUCTION
High-risk pregnancy refers to conditions during pregnancy or childbirth that may threaten the health and life of the mother, fetus, or newborn [
1]. Pregnant women with such high-risk conditions experience higher levels of anxiety than those with normal pregnancies because of concerns about the potential for obstetric complications and fetal health issues during pregnancy and childbirth [
2]. Anxiety experienced by pregnant women can lead to depression, which is reported in 10%–25% of all pregnant women [
3]. In particular, some studies have suggested that high-risk pregnant women are approximately 3 times more likely to experience prenatal depression than low-risk pregnant women [
4].
Prenatal depression is associated with an increase in the risk of preeclampsia, preterm birth, and complications during delivery in pregnant women [
5]. Mental health issues may not only lead to increased rates of preterm birth and low birth weight but also elevate the risk of neonatal infections and cognitive developmental disorders [
5]. Untreated prenatal depression can lead to maternal nutritional deficiencies, sleep disturbances, poor adherence to medical recommendations, increased exposure to tobacco and substance, and even suicide risk [
6]. Furthermore, prenatal depression can progress to postpartum depression, and chronic depressive conditions and may recur in subsequent pregnancies [
7]. Given that a substantial proportion of pregnant women experience depressive symptoms, understanding the underlying causes of prenatal depression and developing effective interventions is important. Such efforts can improve the health of not only the pregnant women but also the fetus and the family.
Pregnancy stress is a major factor influencing depression during pregnancy. It reduces placental blood flow and oxygen supply to the fetus, potentially impairing fetal brain development [
8]. High levels of pregnancy-related stress are associated with miscarriage and preterm birth, thereby adversely affecting both maternal and fetal outcomes [
9]. Compared with women with low-risk pregnancies, high-risk pregnant women are more likely to experience elevated stress levels due to physical complications, frequent hospital visits, and prolonged hospitalization, which may further exacerbate depressive symptoms [
10].
Low marital satisfaction has been found to significantly increase the risk of both prenatal and postpartum depression [
11]. Conversely, a positive spousal relationship enhances emotional support, boosting marital satisfaction and reducing depressive symptoms [
12].
Resilience is another important factor that directly and indirectly influences marital satisfaction as well as prenatal and postpartum depression [
13]. Individuals with greater resilience are better able to cope with psychologically threatening situations and maintain emotional stability [
14]. High levels of resilience are associated with stronger maternal-fetal attachment [
15] and the increased ability to effectively manage stressors by utilizing adaptive coping strategies and social support, even in high-risk conditions [
1]. Therefore, examining the relationship between resilience and prenatal depression in high-risk pregnant women is crucial.
Previous studies have identified various factors associated with prenatal depression, including socioeconomic difficulties, low educational attainment, unmarried or divorced status, and unemployment [
3]. Additionally, obstetric factors such as high-risk pregnancy, gestational age, and unintended pregnancy, as well as psychological factors including low self-esteem, high anxiety, and stress, have been reported as significant contributors [
10,
16]. High-risk pregnant women often experience restricted environments due to hospitalization, anxiety about delivering a healthy baby, and feelings of loneliness caused by separation from their families [
16].
Despite these findings, most studies have focused on general pregnant populations or examined individual factors in isolation. There is a dearth of studies investigating the combined and interrelated effects of pregnancy stress, marital satisfaction, and resilience on prenatal depression, particularly among hospitalized high-risk pregnant women exposed to more complex clinical and psychosocial stressors.
Therefore, this study aimed to examine the factors related to prenatal depression, including pregnancy stress, marital satisfaction, and resilience.
METHODS
Ethical statements: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Keimyung University Dongsan Hospital in South Korea (IRB No. 2025-01-001). Informed consent was obtained from all participants.
1. Study Design
In this study, descriptive cross-sectional surveys were conducted to examine the relationships between pregnancy stress, marital satisfaction, resilience, and prenatal depression in high-risk pregnant women. The reporting of this study followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines [
17].
Participants included pregnant women who were less than 37 weeks pregnant, diagnosed with high-risk pregnancy, and admitted to the High-Risk Maternal and Fetal Intensive Care Centre at Keimyung University’s Tertiary General Hospital in Daegu. In this study, high-risk pregnancy includes conditions such as preterm labor, hypertensive disorders, gestational diabetes, placenta-related complications, and other maternal or fetal conditions requiring specialized medical care. The selection criteria were as follows: (1) diagnoses listed among the 19 major high-risk pregnancy conditions specified by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (e.g., preterm labor, premature rupture of membranes, cervical insufficiency, placenta previa, placental abruption, preeclampsia, oligohydramnios and polyhydramnios, multiple pregnancies, fetal abnormalities, uterine malformations, hypertension, diabetes, and other medical conditions), (2) pregnant women who were married to or living with their partners, (3) pregnant women who fully understood the study’s purpose and questionnaire content and could respond independently, and (4) pregnant women who voluntarily participated. Foreign pregnant women who were unable to communicate fluently in Korean and pregnant women diagnosed with depression or taking antidepressants were excluded from the study.
The sample size was calculated using G*Power ver. 3.1.9.7 (Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf). Based on hierarchical regression analysis, the significance level was set at .05, the effect size at a medium level of .15, and the power at .80.
Sixteen predictor variables were considered, including demographic characteristics (age, highest level of education, employment status, family income level, and duration of marriage) and obstetric characteristics (gestational age, parity, infertility treatment status, desire for pregnancy, premature birth, miscarriage experience, reason for visit, and receipt of prenatal education). A minimum sample size of 143 participants was required for this study. Anticipating a 15% dropout rate, data were collected from a total of 169 participants. All questionnaires were completed without substantial missing data and were included in the final analysis.
3. Instruments
1) Pregnancy stress
The Pregnancy Stress Scale was used to assess stress levels of pregnant women [
18]. This scale measures stress caused by various changes during pregnancy. It consists of 26 items divided into 3 subfactors: fetus (9 items), pregnant woman herself (11 items), and spouse (6 items). Scoring is based on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (‘not at all worried’) to 5 (‘always worried’). The total score ranges from 26 to 130. Higher scores indicate a higher pregnancy stress index. At the time of the scale’s development, the reliability value was Cronbach’s α=.84. The instrument’s reliability in this study was Cronbach’s α=.88.
2) Marital satisfaction
Marital satisfaction was measured using the Korean Marital Satisfaction Scale [
19], adapted for couples during pregnancy. This tool consists of 31 items: 16 in the affective domain and 15 in the communicative domain. The affective domain comprises 2 subdomains: respect for and consideration of the partner. The communicative domain comprises 2 subdomains: effective communication and conflict resolution, and negative communication. Each item is scored on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (‘not at all true’) to 4 (‘very true’). Total scores range from 31 to 124. Higher scores indicate greater marital satisfaction. At the time of the tool’s development, its reliability was Cronbach’s α=.83. The reliability of the tool in this study was Cronbach’s α=.96.
3) Resilience
Resilience was measured using the Korean version of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale [
20]. This scale has proven reliability and validity and consists of 25 items. It is divided into 5 subscales: resilience (items 1, 4, 14–19, 23), persistence (items 5, 10–12, 21, 22, 24, 25), optimism (items 6–9), support (items 2, 13), and spirituality (items 3, 20). All items are scored on a 5-point scale, with total scores ranging from 0 to 100. Higher scores indicate greater resilience. At the time of tool development, its reliability was Cronbach’s α=.89; Baek et al. [
20] reported a higher reliability (Cronbach’s α=.93). The reliability of the tool for this study was Cronbach’s α=.93.
4) Prenatal depression
Prenatal depression was assessed using the Korean version of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale [
21]. The scale consists of 10 items covering depression, anxiety, guilt, and suicidal thoughts over the past week and uses a 4-point Likert scale. Each item is scored from 0 (‘strongly agree’) to 3 (‘strongly disagree’). Reverse-coded items (items 3, 5–10) are scored in reverse order. A score of 0–8 indicates normal, 9–12 indicates mild depression, and ≥13 indicates severe depression. The total scores range from 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating more severe prenatal depression. The tool’s reliability was Cronbach’s α=.89, whereas the study by Han et al. [
21] showed Cronbach’s α=.85. Its reliability in this study was Cronbach’s α=.98.
5) Demographic and obstetric characteristics
Demographic and obstetric characteristics were collected using a self-report questionnaire. Demographic characteristics included age, highest level of education, employment status, household income, and duration of marriage. Obstetric characteristics included gestational age, parity, experience of infertility treatment, desire for pregnancy, history of preterm birth, miscarriage experience, reason for hospital visit, and receipt of prenatal education.
4. Data Collection
Data were collected from January 11, 2025 to April 1, 2025. The study participants were high-risk pregnant women hospitalized in the high-risk maternal and fetal intensive care unit of a tertiary hospital. Participants were identified by reviewing admission records in the high-risk maternal and fetal intensive care unit. Eligible participants were approached after clinical stabilization during hospitalization. After confirming eligibility, the researcher explained the study purpose, procedures, and ethical considerations in a private setting within the hospital ward. Written informed consent was obtained prior to participation. Primary data were collected using self-report questionnaires assessing pregnancy stress, marital satisfaction, resilience, prenatal depression, and clinical and obstetric data. All collected data were reviewed for completeness immediately after collection. The data were anonymized, coded, and securely stored in a password-protected database accessible only to the research team.
5. Data Analysis
The data collected in this study were analyzed using the IBM SPSS for Windows ver. 30.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). A descriptive statistical analysis, composed of calculations of frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations, was performed on the participants’ demographic and obstetric characteristics. Pregnancy stress, marital satisfaction, resilience, and prenatal depression levels were analyzed using means and standard deviations. To verify the differences in prenatal depression levels according to demographic and pregnancy-related characteristics, t-tests and one-way analysis of variance were performed with post-hoc analysis using the Scheffé method. Pearson’s correlation coefficients were used to assess correlations among pregnancy stress, marital satisfaction, resilience, and prenatal depression. Independent variables were selected based on both theoretical relevance and preliminary analyses. Specifically, variables that showed significant differences in prenatal depression in univariate analyses (infertility treatment and desire for pregnancy) and those significantly correlated with prenatal depression (pregnancy stress, marital satisfaction, and resilience) were included in the regression model. A multiple regression analysis was used to examine the relationships between pregnancy stress, marital satisfaction, resilience, and prenatal depression.
RESULTS
1. Prenatal Depression according to General Characteristics
The levels of prenatal depression based on participants’ demographic and obstetric characteristics are presented in
Table 1. No statistically significant differences in prenatal depression scores were observed according to age, educational level, employment status, household income, or duration of marriage. Duration of marriage was divided into 2 groups based on a median of 38 months to compare prenatal depression scores; however, no significant differences were found. Significant differences in prenatal depression were observed in some obstetric variables. Participants without infertility treatment had higher prenatal depression scores than those with treatment (t=2.06,
p=.041). Prenatal depression was also higher among women with no desire for pregnancy (t=3.58,
p<.001). Conversely, prenatal depression scores did not show statistically significant differences based on gestational age, parity, history of preterm birth, history of miscarriage, diagnosis, or prenatal education.
The results related to the measurement of pregnancy stress, marital satisfaction, resilience, and prenatal depression among the participants are shown in
Table 2. The mean scores were 61.34±13.40 for pregnancy stress, 100.02±13.18 for marital satisfaction, and 61.96±13.20 for resilience. The mean prenatal depression score was 8.75±5.54. Under depression severity, 56.2% of participants were classified as normal, 20.7% as mildly depressed, and 23.1% as severely depressed.
The results of the analysis of the correlations among pregnancy stress, marital satisfaction, resilience, and prenatal depression among the participants are shown in
Table 3. Participants’ prenatal depression was positively correlated with pregnancy stress (r=.43,
p<.001) and negatively correlated with marital satisfaction (r=–.22,
p=.004) and resilience (r=–.53,
p<.001).
Multiple regression analyses were conducted using infertility treatment, desire for pregnancy, pregnancy stress, marital satisfaction, and resilience. Independent variables were selected based on both theoretical relevance and preliminary analyses. Pregnancy stress, marital satisfaction, and resilience were selected based on prior literature. In addition, infertility treatment and desire for pregnancy were included as they caused significant differences in prenatal depression in the univariate analyses. Results of the analyses are summarized in
Table 4. All regression assumptions, including normality, linearity, homoscedasticity, and multicollinearity, were satisfied. No multicollinearity was detected (tolerance=.79–.97; variance inflation factor=1.04–1.27), and the Durbin-Watson statistic (2.13) indicated no autocorrelation. The model was statistically significant (F=21.07,
p<.001) and explained 37.4% of the variance in prenatal depression (R
2=.393, adjusted R
2=.374).
Pregnancy stress was positively associated with prenatal depression (β=.26, p<.001), whereas resilience showed the strongest negative association (β=–.43, p<.001). Desire for pregnancy (dummy-coded; not desired=0) was also a significant predictor (β=–.16, p=.018). In contrast, infertility treatment and marital satisfaction were not significant predictors of prenatal depression.
DISCUSSION
This study was conducted to assess pregnancy stress, marital satisfaction, and resilience among high-risk pregnant women and investigate the effects of these variables on prenatal depression. Prenatal depression levels observed in this study were higher than those reported in general pregnant populations [
22], suggesting that high-risk pregnancy status may be associated with increased psychological vulnerability. Notably, a considerable proportion of participants required counseling or clinical intervention, underscoring the importance of early detection and targeted support for prenatal depression among high-risk pregnant women.
Women without infertility treatments showed higher levels of prenatal depression than those who had undergone infertility treatment. This finding should be interpreted with caution; however, one possible explanation is that women who conceive following an infertility treatment may experience psychological relief after successful conception, given that infertility is often associated with high levels of stress, uncertainty, and emotional burden [
23]. In addition, these women may receive more consistent medical attention and emotional support during the treatment process. Conversely, women who have not undergone fertility treatments may be more likely to have unplanned or less psychologically prepared pregnancies, which could contribute to increased depressive symptoms. These findings suggest that psychological preparedness for pregnancy, rather than the infertility treatment experience itself, may play a more important role in prenatal depression, which is consistent with evidence highlighting the impact of pregnancy intention on maternal mental health [
24].
Furthermore, prenatal depression differed significantly according to the desire for pregnancy, with women who did not desire the pregnancy reporting higher depression levels. Unintended pregnancy may impose substantial psychological burden, including negative emotions, reduced sense of control, and anxiety regarding future parenting, all of which are known risk factors for prenatal depression [
25]. These effects may be further exacerbated in high-risk pregnancies, where psychological vulnerability is compounded by underlying medical risks.
Correlation analysis showed that pregnancy stress was positively associated with prenatal depression, whereas marital satisfaction and resilience were negatively associated. These findings support the role of pregnancy stress as a key psychological factor influencing prenatal depression [
26]. Marital satisfaction was negatively correlated with prenatal depression, suggesting that spousal relationships and emotional support may act as protective factors for maternal mental health [
27]. However, marital satisfaction was not an independent predictor of prenatal depression in the hierarchical regression model, indicating that its effect may be indirect, possibly through psychological pathways such as pregnancy stress or resilience [
28]. This limited explanatory value may also be related to the characteristics of the study population. Participants were high-risk pregnant women hospitalized in a tertiary hospital, a context that is physically restrictive and socially constrained compared with non-hospitalized pregnant women [
28,
29]. Accordingly, marital satisfaction, as a broad construct, may have reduced sensitivity in explaining prenatal depression in high-risk pregnancy contexts [
30]. Therefore, future research should incorporate more specific relational indicators—such as the spouse’s actual emotional support, frequency and quality of communication, and caregiving involvement—to better capture the relationship dynamics relevant to prenatal depression.
Resilience was a major protective factor and showed the strongest negative association with prenatal depression. Resilience refers to the capacity to adapt positively and recover from adversity [
31]. Our findings indicate that resilience may buffer the detrimental impact of pregnancy-related physical and psychological stress, reducing the likelihood of progression to prenatal depression. This highlights resilience as a clinically meaningful target for assessment and intervention in high-risk pregnancy populations [
31,
32].
In this model, pregnancy stress was identified as a significant risk factor for prenatal depression, indicating that pregnancy-related concerns and stressors contribute to elevated depressive symptoms during pregnancy. Among the reproductive-context variables, the desire for pregnancy was significantly associated with prenatal depression, whereas infertility treatment experience was not. This suggests that the psychological meaning and acceptance of pregnancy may be more significant than treatment history itself, consistent with previous findings [
24,
33]. Marital satisfaction was not significantly associated with prenatal depression, after controlling for other predictors, supporting the possibility that its influence is indirect and less prominent in high-risk pregnancy contexts where medical and psychosocial stressors are substantial [
28,
30].
Overall, this study clarified the relative effects of pregnancy stress, marital satisfaction, and resilience on prenatal depression among high-risk pregnant women using multiple regression analysis. These findings indicate that proximal psychological factors, particularly pregnancy stress and resilience, may exert a more direct influence on prenatal depression than broader contextual factors such as marital satisfaction or infertility treatment experience [
34]. These results underscore the importance of systematic screening, continuous assessment of pregnancy-related stress, and resilience-focused interventions to prevent and manage prenatal depression in hospitalized high-risk pregnant women. From a nursing practice perspective, a comprehensive understanding of the interplay among these factors may facilitate early identification of women at risk and support the development of tailored, patient and family-centered interventions.
This study has several limitations. First, the findings may have limited generalizability because participants were recruited from a single tertiary hospital, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to broader populations or different clinical settings. Second, because all variables were assessed using self-reported questionnaires, reporting bias may have occurred. In particular, hospitalized high-risk pregnant women may have underreported depressive symptoms or emotional difficulties because of concerns about stigma or the clinical environment. Third, the cross-sectional design precludes causal inferences.
Despite these limitations, this study makes important clinical and academic contributions. It identifies key modifiable psychological factors—particularly resilience and pregnancy stress—associated with prenatal depression among hospitalized high-risk pregnant women. These findings highlight the need for routine psychological screening and the development of resilience-enhancing and stress management interventions in high-risk pregnancy care settings. Furthermore, by focusing on a clinically vulnerable and underexplored population, this study contributes to the literature on high-risk pregnancy care and offers evidence to inform targeted nursing interventions and future longitudinal research.
CONCLUSION
This study identified factors related to prenatal depression among high-risk pregnant women, including desire for pregnancy, pregnancy stress, marital satisfaction, and resilience. The results showed that resilience had the strongest association with prenatal depression, followed by pregnancy stress and desire for pregnancy. Additionally, 43.8% of the participants experienced mild or higher levels of antenatal depression, with a total explanatory power of 37.4%. These findings suggest the need for tailored nursing interventions centered on resilience, continuous stress assessment from early pregnancy, and establishment of individualized psychological support systems to manage and prevent prenatal depression in high-risk pregnant women. Furthermore, it is recommended to strengthen professional counseling and medical support systems that reflect the psychosocial context of high-risk pregnant women, conduct research validating the effectiveness of resilience enhancement programs, establish a systematic stress assessment system from early pregnancy, and develop personalized psychological support systems through longitudinal studies to confirm the impact of prenatal depression-related factors that extend into the postpartum period.
ARTICLE INFORMATION
Table 1.Differences in prenatal depression according to general characteristics of high-risk pregnant women (N=169)
|
Characteristic |
No. (%) |
Mean±SD |
t or F |
p
|
|
Demographic characteristics |
|
|
|
|
|
Age (yr) |
|
|
1.30 |
.276 |
|
20s |
16 (9.5) |
7.75±5.40 |
|
|
|
30s |
129 (76.3) |
9.12±5.66 |
|
|
|
40s |
24 (14.2) |
7.38±4.84 |
|
|
|
Education |
|
|
0.22 |
.879 |
|
High school graduate or below |
28 (16.6) |
8.79±5.30 |
|
|
|
College graduate |
39 (23.1) |
9.00±4.74 |
|
|
|
University graduate |
91 (53.8) |
8.49±5.73 |
|
|
|
Graduate degree or higher |
11 (6.5) |
9.82±7.57 |
|
|
|
Occupation |
|
|
0.77 |
.445 |
|
None |
85 (50.3) |
9.07±5.37 |
|
|
|
Present |
84 (49.7) |
8.42±5.73 |
|
|
|
Household income |
|
|
2.05 |
.132 |
|
Sufficient |
37 (21.9) |
8.14±6.03 |
|
|
|
Average |
106 (62.7) |
8.47±5.23 |
|
|
|
Insufficient |
26 (15.4) |
10.73±5.83 |
|
|
|
Marriage duration (mo) |
|
|
0.23 |
.822 |
|
<38 |
82 (48.5) |
8.84±5.79 |
|
|
|
≥38 |
87 (51.5) |
8.65±5.29 |
|
|
|
Obstetric characteristics |
|
|
|
|
|
Gestational age (wk) |
|
|
1.10 |
.271 |
|
<28 |
58 (34.3) |
9.40±5.61 |
|
|
|
≥28 |
111 (65.7) |
8.41±5.50 |
|
|
|
Parity |
|
|
0.37 |
.709 |
|
Primiparous |
127 (75.1) |
8.65±5.37 |
|
|
|
Multiparous |
42 (24.9) |
9.02±6.10 |
|
|
|
Infertility treatment |
|
|
2.06 |
.041 |
|
No |
104 (61.5) |
9.43±5.69 |
|
|
|
Yes |
65 (38.5) |
7.65±5.16 |
|
|
|
Desire for pregnancy |
|
|
3.58 |
<.001 |
|
Not desired |
16 (9.5) |
13.31±6.17 |
|
|
|
Desired |
153 (90.5) |
8.27±5.27 |
|
|
|
History of preterm birth |
|
|
1.31 |
.191 |
|
None |
154 (91.1) |
8.57±5.43 |
|
|
|
Yes |
15 (8.9) |
10.53±6.57 |
|
|
|
Abortion experience |
|
|
0.68 |
.498 |
|
None |
122 (72.2) |
8.57±5.45 |
|
|
|
Yes |
47 (27.8) |
9.21±5.81 |
|
|
|
Diagnosis |
|
|
0.65 |
.665 |
|
Preterm labor |
86 (50.9) |
8.49±5.49 |
|
|
|
Other |
35 (20.7) |
8.71±5.04 |
|
|
|
Placenta previa |
15 (8.9) |
9.53±5.38 |
|
|
|
Gestational hypertension |
14 (8.3) |
10.79±7.71 |
|
|
|
Intrauterine growth retardation |
11 (6.5) |
7.18±6.03 |
|
|
|
Oligohydramnios |
8 (4.7) |
8.75±3.65 |
|
|
|
Prenatal education status |
|
|
0.01 |
.994 |
|
None |
123 (72.8) |
8.72±5.44 |
|
|
|
Irregular |
42 (24.8) |
8.79±5.90 |
|
|
|
Regular |
4 (2.4) |
9.00±6.32 |
|
|
Table 2.Pregnancy stress, marital satisfaction, resilience, and prenatal depression (N=169)
|
Variable |
No. (%) or Mean±SD |
Score range |
Minimum value |
Maximum value |
|
Pregnancy stress |
61.34±13.40 |
26 to 130 |
29 |
107 |
|
Marital satisfaction |
100.02±13.18 |
31 to 124 |
62 |
124 |
|
Resilience |
61.96±13.20 |
0 to 100 |
13 |
100 |
|
Prenatal depression |
8.75±5.54 |
0 to 30 |
0 |
26 |
|
Normal |
95 (56.2) |
0 to 8 |
|
|
|
Mild depression |
35 (20.7) |
9 to 12 |
|
|
|
Severe depression |
39 (23.1) |
≥13 |
|
|
Table 3.Correlations among pregnancy stress, marital satisfaction, resilience, and prenatal depression (N=169)
|
Variable |
r (p) |
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
1. Pregnancy stress |
1 |
|
|
|
|
2. Marital satisfaction |
–.27 (<.001) |
1 |
|
|
|
3. Resilience |
–.37 (<.001) |
.32 (<.001) |
1 |
|
|
4. Prenatal depression |
.43 (<.001) |
–.22 (.004) |
–.53 (<.001) |
1 |
Table 4.Factors influencing prenatal depression (N=169)
|
Variable |
B |
SE |
β |
t |
p
|
|
Constant |
18.02 |
4.26 |
- |
4.23 |
<.001 |
|
Infertility treatmenta)
|
–0.84 |
0.72 |
–.07 |
–1.17 |
.245 |
|
Desire for pregnancyb)
|
–3.02 |
1.26 |
–.16 |
–2.40 |
.018 |
|
Pregnancy stress |
0.11 |
0.03 |
.26 |
3.98 |
<.001 |
|
Marital satisfaction |
0.03 |
0.03 |
.06 |
0.88 |
.381 |
|
Resilience |
–0.18 |
0.03 |
–.43 |
–6.31 |
<.001 |
|
Model fit |
R2=.393, adjusted R2=.374, F=21.07, p<.001 |
REFERENCES
- 1. Holness N. High-risk pregnancy. Nurs Clin North Am. 2018;53(2):241-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnur.2018.01.010
- 2. Isaacs NZ, Andipatin MG. A systematic review regarding women’s emotional and psychological experiences of high-risk pregnancies. BMC Psychol. 2020;8(1):45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-020-00410-8
- 3. Field T. Prenatal depression risk factors, developmental effects and interventions: a review. J Pregnancy Child Health. 2017;4(1):301. https://doi.org/10.4172/2376-127X.1000301
- 4. Thiagayson P, Krishnaswamy G, Lim ML, Sung SC, Haley CL, Fung DS, et al. Depression and anxiety in Singaporean high-risk pregnancies: prevalence and screening. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2013;35(2):112-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2012.11.006
- 5. Nisar A, Yin J, Waqas A, Bai X, Wang D, Rahman A, et al. Prevalence of perinatal depression and its determinants in Mainland China: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. 2020;277:1022-1037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.07.046
- 6. Jahan N, Went TR, Sultan W, Sapkota A, Khurshid H, Qureshi IA, et al. Untreated depression during pregnancy and its effect on pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review. Cureus. 2021;13(8):e17251. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.17251
- 7. Wolf AW, De Andraca I, Lozoff B. Maternal depression in three Latin American samples. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2002;37(4):169-176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001270200011
- 8. Parcells DA. Women’s mental health nursing: depression, anxiety and stress during pregnancy. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2010;17(9):813-820. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2850.2010.01588.x
- 9. Lima SA, El Dib RP, Rodrigues MR, Ferraz GA, Molina AC, Neto CA, et al. Is the risk of low birth weight or preterm labor greater when maternal stress is experienced during pregnancy?: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. PLoS One. 2018;13(7):e0200594. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200594
- 10. Smorti M, Ginobbi F, Simoncini T, Pancetti F, Carducci A, Mauri G, et al. Anxiety and depression in women hospitalized due to high-risk pregnancy: an integrative quantitative and qualitative study. Curr Psychol. 2023;42(7):5570-5579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01902-5
- 11. Azad R, Fahmi R, Shrestha S, Joshi H, Hasan M, Khan AN, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of postpartum depression within one year after birth in urban slums of Dhaka, Bangladesh. PLoS One. 2019;14(5):e0215735. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215735
- 12. Vaezi A, Soojoodi F, Banihashemi AT, Nojomi M. The association between social support and postpartum depression in women: a cross sectional study. Women Birth. 2019;32(2):e238-e242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2018.07.014
- 13. Kallas KA, Marr K, Moirangthem S, Heude B, Koehl M, van der Waerden J, et al. Maternal mental health care matters: the impact of prenatal depressive and anxious symptoms on child emotional and behavioural trajectories in the French EDEN Cohort. J Clin Med. 2023;12(3):1120. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12031120
- 14. Hajure M, Alemu SS, Abdu Z, Tesfaye GM, Workneh YA, Dule A, et al. Resilience and mental health among perinatal women: a systematic review. Front Psychiatry. 2024;15:1373083. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1373083
- 15. Noroozi M, Gholami M, Mohebbi-Dehnavi Z. The relationship between hope and resilience with promoting maternal attachment to the fetus during pregnancy. J Educ Health Promot. 2020;9:54. https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_386_19
- 16. Smorti M, Gemignani A, Bonassi L, Mauri G, Carducci A, Ionio C. The impact of COVID-19 restrictions on depressive symptoms in low-risk and high-risk pregnant women: a cross-sectional study before and during pandemic. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022;22(1):191. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-04515-3
- 17. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med. 2007;4(10):e296. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296
- 18. Ahn HL. An experimental study of the effects of husband’s supportive behavior reinforcement education on stress relief of primigravidas. J Nurs Acad Soc. 1985;15(1):5-16. https://doi.org/10.4040/jnas.1985.15.1.5
- 19. Chung H. A study of development of the Korean-Marital Satisfaction Scale. J Korean Home Econ Assoc [Internet]. 2001 [cited 2026 Feb 10];39(12):205-224. Available from: https://koreascience.kr/article/JAKO200111921063455.pdf
- 20. Baek SJ, Yun JA, Nam JA, Seo EY, Kwon SY, Lee CH, et al. Antenatal depressive symptoms and associated risk factors among pregnant women. J Korean Neuropsychiatr Assoc. 2019;58(4):346-352. https://doi.org/10.4306/jknpa.2019.58.4.346
- 21. Han K, Kim M, Park JM. The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, Korean version: reliability and validity. J Korean Soc Biol Ther Psychiatry [Internet]. 2004 [cited 2026 Feb 10];10(2):201-207. Available from: https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/sereArticleSearch/ciSereArtiView.kci?sereArticleSearchBean.artiId=ART001177556
- 22. Lee EJ, Lee JY, Lee SJ, Yu SE. Influence of self-esteem and spouse support on prenatal depression in pregnant women. J Korean Soc Matern Child Health. 2020;24(4):212-220. https://doi.org/10.21896/jksmch.2020.24.4.212
- 23. Bhat A, Byatt N. Infertility and perinatal loss: when the bough breaks. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2016;18(3):31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-016-0663-8
- 24. Bahk J, Yun SC, Kim YM, Khang YH. Impact of unintended pregnancy on maternal mental health: a causal analysis using follow up data of the Panel Study on Korean Children (PSKC). BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15:85. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-015-0505-4
- 25. Muskens L, Boekhorst MG, Kop WJ, van den Heuvel MI, Pop VJ, Beerthuizen A. The association of unplanned pregnancy with perinatal depression: a longitudinal cohort study. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2022;25(3):611-620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-022-01225-9
- 26. Insan N, Weke A, Forrest S, Rankin J. Social determinants of antenatal depression and anxiety among women in South Asia: a systematic review & meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2022;17(2):e0263760. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263760
- 27. Yoo H, Ahn S, Park S, Kim J, Oh J, Koh M. Factors influencing prenatal and postpartum depression in Korea: a prospective cohort study. Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2021;27(4):326-336. https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2021.11.17
- 28. Koh M, Ahn S, Kim J, Park S, Oh J. Pregnant women’s antenatal depression and influencing factors. Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2019;25(1):112-123. https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2019.25.1.112
- 29. Giurgescu C, Penckofer S, Maurer MC, Bryant FB. Impact of uncertainty, social support, and prenatal coping on the psychological well-being of high-risk pregnant women. Nurs Res. 2006;55(5):356-365. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-200609000-00008
- 30. Olabisi OI, Ogunmodede E, Ojo S, Ilori O, Esan DT. Body image perception and social support as predictors of psychological distress among third trimester pregnant women in Nigeria. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2024;24(1):298. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06463-6
- 31. Goldstein Z, Rosen B, Howlett A, Anderson M, Herman D. Interventions for paternal perinatal depression: a systematic review. J Affect Disord. 2020;265:505-510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2019.12.029
- 32. Wang Y, Gu J, Zhang F, Xu X. Path analysis of influencing factors for maternal antenatal depression in the third trimester. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):4742. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-55355-4
- 33. Capotosto MP, Corcoran E, Burgess AW, Rifas-Shiman SL, Chavarro JE, Oken E. Anxiety and depression symptoms during pregnancy and postpartum among parous women with history of infertility. Fertil Steril. 2023;120(6):1252-1254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.08.970
- 34. Ma X, Wang Y, Hu H, Tao XG, Zhang Y, Shi H. The impact of resilience on prenatal anxiety and depression among pregnant women in Shanghai. J Affect Disord. 2019;250:57-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2019.02.058
