http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1179-0362
Figures
Abstract
Background
Prenatal psychological stress may increase the risk of placental abruption (PA). This study aimed to clarify the effects of psychological distress during pregnancy and exposure to stressful life events in the year before or during pregnancy on the occurrence of PA in Japanese women.
Methods
Using a nationwide prospective birth cohort study, we obtained data from 103,099 women between January 2011 and March 2014. Information on exposure to 14 stressful life events and psychological distress (Kessler 6 scale) was collected using a self-administered questionnaire during pregnancy. Clinical diagnoses of PA were obtained from medical records. A total of 80,799 women with singleton births were analyzed using logistic regression models that adjusted for possible confounders.
Results
PA was diagnosed in 335 (0.4%) women. There was no significant difference in the Kessler 6 score during pregnancy between the PA group and non-PA group. Exposure to the death of a child in the year before or during pregnancy was significantly associated with PA in multigravid women (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.57; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.50–8.34). A spouse’s loss of employment was significantly associated with PA in parous women (aOR 3.25; 95% CI 1.40–7.56).
Citation: Kawanishi Y, Yoshioka E, Saijo Y, Itoh T, Miyamoto T, Sengoku K, et al. (2019) The relationship between prenatal psychological stress and placental abruption in Japan, The Japan Environment and Children’s Study (JECS). PLoS ONE 14(7): e0219379. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219379
Editor: Kenji Hashimoto, Chiba Daigaku, JAPAN
Received: January 31, 2019; Accepted: June 23, 2019; Published: July 8, 2019
Copyright: © 2019 Kawanishi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: Data are unsuitable for public deposition due to ethical restrictions and legal framework of Japan. It is prohibited by the Act on the Protection of Personal Information (Act No. 57 of 30 May 2003, amendment on 9 September 2015) to publicly deposit the data containing personal information. Ethical Guidelines for Epidemiological Research enforced by the Japan Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology and the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare also restricts the open sharing of the epidemiologic data. All inquiries about access to data should be sent to: jecs-en@nies.go.jp. The person responsible for handling enquiries sent to this e-mail address is Dr Shoji F. Nakayama, JECS Programme Office, National Institute for Environmental Studies.
Funding: The Japan Environment and Children’s Study was funded by the Ministry of the Environment, the Government of Japan. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Abbreviations: JECS, Japan Environment and Children’s Study
Introduction
Placental abruption (PA) is a severe condition involving the partial or complete separation of a normally implanted placenta before delivery, and occurs in 0.4–1% of all pregnancies [1, 2]. This condition is one of the most important causes of maternal morbidity and perinatal mortality [1–3]. Although its detailed pathophysiology remains unclear, defective placentation and subsequent placental infarctions have been shown to be contributing factors for PA [4, 5].
Previous studies have reported that psychologically stressed pregnant women are at increased risk of intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) [6, 7], pre-eclampsia [8], and PA [9, 10]. In a case-control study of several hundred pregnant women in Peru, de Paz et al. identified prenatal depressive, anxiety, and stress symptoms as independent risk factors for PA [10]. Laszlo et al. conducted a prospective cohort study of singleton births in Sweden and Denmark, and reported that the death of a child the year before or during pregnancy was associated with a 54% increase in the odds of PA occurrence [9]. To our knowledge, only these two studies have reported an association between maternal psychological stress and PA. However, one was a retrospective study and the other could not adjust for potentially important confounding factors such as smoking status and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.
The purpose of this study was to clarify the effects of psychological distress during pregnancy and exposure to stressful life events in the year before or during pregnancy on the occurrence of PA with adjustment for important confounding factors using Japan’s largest prospective birth cohort study.
Methods
Study participants
The Japan Environment and Children’s Study (JECS) is a prospective birth cohort study that involves participants located throughout Japan [11–13]. Women in the early stages of pregnancy are recruited into the JECS with written informed consent.
Ethical issues
The JECS protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board for Epidemiological Studies at the Ministry of the Environment, Japan, and the ethics committees of all participating institutions. These institutions include the National Institute for Environmental Studies (which leads the JECS), the National Center for Child Health and Development, Hokkaido University, Sapporo Medical University, Asahikawa Medical College, Japanese Red Cross Hokkaido College of Nursing, Tohoku University, Fukushima Medical University, Chiba University, Yokohama City University, University of Yamanashi, Shinshu University; University of Toyama, Nagoya City University, Kyoto University, Doshisha University, Osaka University, Osaka Medical Center and Research Institute for Maternal and Child Health, Hyogo College of Medicine, Tottori University, Kochi University, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kyushu University, Kumamoto University, University of Miyazaki, and the University of the Ryukyus. The JECS was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration and other regulations and guidelines stipulated by the Japanese government.
Exposure variable
The exposure variables included the experience of a stressful life event and psychological distress. A self-administered questionnaire about stressful life events was distributed to each participant during their second/third trimester (T2 period). Participants were asked “Did you experience any of the following stressful events during the past year?”. If the answer was “Yes”, the participant selected an option(s) from the following list: “Death of a parent”, “Death of a spouse”, “Death of a child”, “Illness of a parent”, “Illness/injury of a spouse”, “Illness/injury of a child”, “Spouse's loss of employment”, “Loss of employment”, “Death of a close friend”, “Taking out a major loan”, “Change in family structure (e.g., starting living together with grandparents)”, “Divorce”, “Moving house”, and “Having marital problems”.
Psychological distress was examined using the Kessler 6 scale (K6), which is one of the most widely employed as an indicator of mental disorders. [14] Because of its shortness, K6 has a great advantage than other well-known scales. The reliability and validity of the original version have been repeatedly confirmed. [15, 16] The Japanese version of the K6 was developed using the standard back-translation method [17], and has been previously validated [18]. The K6 consists of six items, each of which has five possible responses and corresponding scores (0–4). A higher total score (range 0–24) indicates a more psychologically distressed state, and Kessler et al [16]. showed those with K6 scores of ≥ 13 as having psychological distress. We distributed the questionnaire to measure K6 twice during pregnancy: once during their first trimester (T1 period) and a second time during their T2 period.
Outcome variable
The outcome variable of this study was clinically diagnosed PA based on the relevant International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision code (O45). The clinical diagnosis was ascertained from medical records by physicians, midwives/nurses, and/or research coordinators after delivery [12]. Participants who developed PA were designated the PA group, and the remaining participants were designated the non-PA group.
Covariates
We collected information on potential confounding factors of PA [2, 19]. Using a self-administered questionnaire sent to the participants during the T1 period, we collected data on marital status, smoking status, employment status, history of uterine fibroids, and history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Using another self-administered questionnaire sent during the T2 period, we also collected data on alcohol consumption during pregnancy and maternal education level. The following information was collected from medical records: maternal age at delivery, parity, use of infertility treatment, pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI), chronic hypertension, diabetes mellitus, psychiatric disorder, hypothyroidism, uterine deformity, history of cesarean section, history of spontaneous abortion, history of stillbirth, history of PA, use of iron supplements during pregnancy, intrauterine infection, premature rupture of membranes, oligohydramnios, polyhydramnios, placenta previa, IUGR, gender of offspring, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Of the above, the following disorders were clinically diagnosed based on the relevant International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision code; premature rupture of membranes (O42), IUGR (P05), hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (O13, O14), gestational diabetes (O24.4, O24.9), placenta previa (O42), polyhydramnios (O40) and oligohydramnios (O41).
Statistical analysis
Analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 23.0 and 24.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). First, we compared the stressful life events occurrence and psychological distress status between the PA group and the non-PA group. These were calculated and presented as numbers and percentages or mean and standard deviations, where applicable. Fisher’s exact test was performed to assess categorical variables and Mann-Whitney U test was performed to assess continuous variables. Next, we compared the baseline characteristics for the “death of a child” exposure that had shown a significant association in the analysis.
Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for PA were estimated for each stressful life event and K6 score using multivariable logistic regression models. We conducted adjustments for maternal age at delivery, parity, marital status, smoking status, alcohol consumption, use of infertility treatment, maternal education level, pre-pregnancy BMI, employment status, chronic hypertension, diabetes mellitus, psychiatric disorder, hypothyroidism, uterine deformity, history of uterine fibroids, history of cesarean section, history of spontaneous abortion, history of stillbirth, history of PA, history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, use of iron supplements during pregnancy, intrauterine infection, premature rupture of membranes, oligohydramnios, polyhydramnios, placenta previa, IUGR, gender of offspring, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. These covariates were selected due to their previous identification as potential confounders of PA [2, 19], and were included in analysis using the forced entry method. For the following stressful events, the sample was restricted to women who had experienced pregnancy at least once before the index pregnancy: for the “death of a child” exposure, only multigravid women (n = 55,475) were included in analysis; for the “illness/injury of a child” exposure, only parous women (n = 46,026) were included in analysis.
Subsequently, we performed stratified analyses according to parity for three reasons. The first reason was to confirm the influence of the “death of a child” exposure on PA in parous women. The second reason was that childcare is known to be stressful for mothers [20], and the influence of this stressful life event exposure may be influenced by parity. Third, the PA risk factors may differ between nulliparous and parous women [21]. We performed multivariable logistic regression analysis stratified by parity for two stressful life events (“death of a child” and “spouse’s loss of employment”) that had shown a significant or a marginally significant association (P<0.1) in the earlier multivariable analyses.
We also compared the perinatal outcomes, such as gestational age, birth weight, stillbirth, mode of delivery, Apgar score, pH value of umbilical arterial blood, maternal blood transfusion, maternal care in the intensive care unit (ICU), and maternal death, for the purpose of confirming the clinical severity of PA. Additionally, we compared the baseline characteristics of the PA occurrence. Finally, we compared the final analyzed participants (n = 80,799) and the excluded participants for the reason of missing variables (n = 15,463). Statistical significance was set at P<0.05 for all analyses.
Results
There were 103,099 participants between January 2011 and March 2014, and the study selection flow diagram is shown in Fig 1. Of the 104,102 births (JECS data code: jecs-ag-20160424 and revised in October 2016), we excluded multiple births (n = 1,994); babies of indeterminate sex (n = 503); previous participation in this study by the same mothers (n = 5,343); and missing data in any covariate, outcome variable, or exposure variable (n = 15,463). The final study sample comprised 80,799 women.
Of the 80,799 women in the study sample, 335 (0.4%) developed PA. There were no significant differences in K6 score in both the T1 and T2 periods between the PA and non- PA groups though, exposure to the “death of a child” showed the significant difference (Table 1).
The participant characteristics according to the exposure or non-exposure to the death of a child are shown in Table 2. When compared with the non-exposed group, the proportions of participants significantly differ in parity, smoking status, history of uterine fibroids, history of cesarean section, history of spontaneous abortion, history of stillbirth, history of PA, oligohydramnios and K6 score both in T1 and T2 compared with the “death of a child” exposed group among multigravid women.
As shown in Table 3, the aOR for PA occurrence was higher in the "death of a child" exposed group compared with the non-exposed group in multigravid women (adjusted OR 3.54; 95% CI 1.50–8.34). The aOR was numerically higher in the "spouse’s loss of employment" exposed group, but this was not statistically significant (aOR 2.08; 95% CI 0.97–4.49).
Table 4 shows the results of the parity-stratified analysis. The aOR for PA occurrence was numerically higher (albeit not significantly) in the “death of a child” exposed group relative to the non-exposed group in parous women (aOR 3.28; 95% CI 0.98–10.99). However, the "spouse’s loss of employment" exposed group showed significantly higher odds for PA occurrence than the non-exposed group in parous women (aOR 3.25; 95% CI 1.40–7.56).
When compared with the non-PA group, the PA group showed higher proportions of preterm birth, low birth weight, stillbirth, cesarean delivery, neonatal asphyxia, umbilical artery blood acidemia, maternal blood transfusion, maternal ICU hospitalization, and maternal death (S1 Table). PA group also showed the higher proportion of the advanced age, chronic hypertension, hypothyroidism, history of cesarean section, history of placental abruption, history of pregnancy induced hypertension, intrauterine infection, premature rupture of membranes, oligohydramnios, polyhydramnios, placenta previa, intrauterine growth restriction and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (S2 Table). Excluded participants due to missing data in any variable represent more young, parous, smokers, non-educated, medical complications and obstetric complications occurred (S3 Table).
Discussion
In this large-scale birth cohort study, we found that exposure to the death of a child one year before or during pregnancy was significantly associated with an increased risk of PA in multigravid women. Additionally, this is the first study that specifically shows an increased risk of PA associated with a spouse’s loss of employment in parous women after adjusting for important confounding factors. However, there were no significant differences detected in the subjective psychological distress score (K6 score) between the PA group and non- PA group for both the T1 and T2 periods.
Our findings that exposure to the death of a child increases the risk of PA corroborate the results of Laszlo et al. [9], which reported that this stressful event was associated with a 54% increase in the odds of PA in a study of 2.8 million normotensive women. That study utilized national statistics to focus on women with at least one living older child one year before pregnancy. As we were not able to obtain that information for our study, our analysis was conducted on multigravid and parous women. As indicated in the baseline characteristics in Table 2, the "death of a child" exposed group had significantly higher proportions of previous spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, and PA. Nevertheless, the relationship between the exposure to death of a child and PA remained statistically significant even after adjusting for these previous events. It is therefore possible that participants had perceived the “death of a child” response in the questionnaire to include a history of miscarriage and stillbirth, and that these were also recognized as the death of a child. In other words, these events may be sufficiently traumatic to increase the risk of developing PA. However, the aOR for the “death of a child” exposed group in parous women was not significant, which may have been the result of insufficient statistical power due to stratification [22]. Although de Paz et al. [10] reported that subjective depressive symptoms and anxiety scores were independently related to an elevated risk of PA, our study showed no difference in K6 scores between the PA group and non-PA group. Additional multivariable analyses did not detect any significant association between K6 score and PA. De Paz et al.[10] was a case-control study, and it is possible that recall bias affected their results. Our study was a prospective study, and indicated that simple subjective psychological distress may not be associated with the risk of PA.
A possible mechanism to explain the effect of stressful life events on PA occurrence is that stress exposure promotes the secretion of stress hormones, which is followed by vasoconstriction, rises in blood pressure [23], and pro-inflammatory [24, 25] and pro-thrombotic [26] changes that result in uteroplacental ischemia [27]. This stress-induced pathology may cause IUGR [6, 7] or pre-eclampsia [8], thereby leading to the occurrence of PA [9, 10]. However, the effects of the death of a child on PA among multigravid women remained significant even after adjusting for IUGR and pre-eclampsia, therefore indicating that women who had been exposed to these events may have experienced more direct effects. While the development of pre-eclampsia and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are known to be important risk factors for PA [1], 287 (85.7%) of the 335 women with PA in our study did not develop hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.
Another possible mechanism is that sympathetic arousal may have induced PA [28]. Cohen et al. reported a case of PA in a non-medicated pregnant woman with panic disorder [29]. Stressful life events can lead to panic disorders [30], which cause panic attacks and elevate blood pressure [31]. However, our analysis did not allow us to examine panic disorder as a risk factor for PA. Although many panic disorders are known to complicate depressive symptoms [32], our results did not detect any difference in the K6 scores between the PA group and non- PA group. We had performed adjustments for psychiatric disorders, but were unable to identify detailed diagnoses. Further investigations may be needed to clarify the possible influence of each psychiatric disorder such as schizophrenia, depression and panic disorder on PA.
This study has the strengths of being a large-scale prospective cohort study involving recruitment from the Japanese general population [11–13], many of the variables have low risk of recall bias, and adjustments for many important confounding factors. In addition, information on many of these confounding factors and the diagnoses of PA were obtained from medical records. However, the study has several limitations. First, there is the possibility of information bias regarding the stressful life events due to the self-administered nature of the questionnaire and its recall period was set to one year. In addition, the information about the “death of a child” exposure in multigravid women included those who experienced spontaneous abortions or stillbirth, which may lead to an important information bias if the “death of a child” should be limited to the death of a child that has already been born. Nevertheless, our questionnaire was still able to predict the significantly elevated risk for PA. Because the main tools for identifying the risk factors of pregnant women often rely on interview sheets, this self-administered questionnaire may help to reduce labor in the survey process during clinical practice. Second, the K6 score and 12 of the 14 stressful life events in the year before the T2 period were not associated with PA. The death of a child is considered to be a catastrophic stressor [33] and is therefore not surprising as a significant predictor of PA. However, we performed a total of 18 multivariable analyses, thus, the significant associations we observed could be chance findings (type 1 error). If we perform Bonferroni correction, statistical significance should be set at 0.0028 and our results did not show the significant value, however, the consensus about adjustment for the multiple comparison still remains a matter of debate [34] thus, we did not perform Bonferroni correction or other methods in this study. Third, our data on stressful life event exposures did not include detailed timings of their occurrence. Personal perceptions on stress can differ [35], and earlier onset of events can be perceived as being more stressful than later in pregnancy. We were unable to examine the possible effects of the timing of these events on our results. Fourth, there could be an information bias on the prevalence of PA occurrence. According to Matsuda et al. [36], the proportion of PA in Japan was reported as 2461 / 242,715 (1.0%), however, our data showed 0.4% and it was lower than that of the previous PA study. There may be a possibility of an underestimation in PA diagnosis in our data though, the participants of the previous study had the tendency to be biased into severe condition women compared to the Japanese general population because the participated hospitals of their study consisted with many perinatal medical centers. We performed our study targeting the recruitment rate as 50% or more of all eligible mothers [11–13], and confirmed that the JECS participants were approximately similar to the Japanese Vital Statistics [12, 13], so that the proportion of PA in our data would be more similar to the Japanese general population. Fifth, there were some differences in baseline characteristics between the excluded group and the analyzed group (S3 Table). Although the JECS participants were similar to the general population in Japan, some selection bias may exist in the final analyzed sample. Sixth, there could be a possibility of multicollinearity because we used many covariates in the analyses, however, we confirmed that the variance inflation factor (VIF) [37] in each variable was less than five, so that the risk of multicollinearity was not problematic in our analysis. Seventh, there may be the risk of reverse causality, therefore, we examined the data acquisition timing for six persons who experienced both "death of a children" exposure and PA onset. For all six of them, we confirmed that the data about "death of a child" exposure was acquired before the onset of PA. Eighth, the mechanisms underlying these relations are unknown. The K6 score and 12 of the 14 stressful life events were not associated with PA thus, there could be a mechanism that is different from psychological stress, such as biological vulnerability. Ninth, the effect of “spouse’s loss of employment” on PA differs between nulliparous and parous women, and this may be caused by an effect modification. In order to clarify whether this result is really different, we added “parity x spouse’s loss of employment” into full logistic regression model which also includes the measured exposures: all stressful life events and also K6 score (T1) among all women. As a result, no significant association was found in the interaction term. In other words, its mechanism is unclear though, it is considered that “spouses loss of employment” would be a significant risk of PA in parous women.
In conclusion, this study showed the effect of exposure to the death of a child one year before or during pregnancy on PA occurrence in multigravid Japanese women using a large-scale birth cohort study that adjusted for many potentially important confounders. Exposure to a spouse’s loss of employment was also shown to elevate the risk of PA in parous women though, further researches are needed to confirm this relationship. Due to the characteristics of these exposure variables, randomized controlled trials are impractical and the best evidence is dependent on prospective cohort studies. For clinical obstetricians, identification of the death of a child experience as a significant risk factor of PA may help to differentiate the possibility of this condition.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Obstetrical outcomes according to clinical diagnosis of placental abruption.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219379.s001
(XLSX)
S2 Table. Participant characteristics according to clinical diagnosis of placental abruption.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219379.s002
(XLSX)
S3 Table. Baseline characteristics comparison of the final analyzed participants and the excluded participants due to missing data in any covariate, outcome variable, or exposure variable.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219379.s003
(XLSX)
Acknowledgments
We thank the JECS staff members for supporting our study and all participants. The Japan Environment and Children’s Study is operated by the Ministry of the Environment, Japan. The findings and conclusions of this article are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not represent the official views of the Ministry of the Environment, Japan.
Members of JECS as of 2017 (principal investigator, Toshihiro Kawamoto): Hirohisa Saito (Medical Support Center for JECS, National Center for Child Health and Development, Tokyo, Japan), Reiko Kishi (Hokkaido Regional Center for JECS, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan), Nobuo Yaegashi (Miyagi Regional Center for JECS, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan), Koichi Hashimoto (Fukushima Regional Center for JECS, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima, Japan), Chisato Mori (Chiba Regional Center for JECS, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan), Shuichi Ito (Kanagawa Regional Center for JECS, Yokohama City University, Yokohama, Japan), Zentaro Yamagata (Koshin Regional Center for JECS, University of Yamanashi, Chuo, Japan), Hidekuni Inadera (Toyama Regional Center for JECS, University of Toyama, Toyama, Japan), Michihiro Kamijima (Aichi Regional Center for JECS, Nagoya City University, Nagoya, Japan), Takeo Nakayama (Kyoto Regional Center for JECS, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan), Hiroyasu Iso (Osaka Regional Center for JECS, Osaka University, Suita, Japan), Masayuki Shima (Hyogo Regional Center for JECS, Hyogo College of Medicine, Nishinomiya, Japan), Yasuaki Hirooka (Tottori Regional Center for JECS, Tottori University, Yonago, Japan), Narufumi Suganuma (Kochi Regional Center for JECS, Kochi University, Nankoku, Japan), Koichi Kusuhara (Fukuoka Regional Center for JECS, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kitakyushu, Japan), and Takahiko Katoh (South Kyushu/Okinawa Regional Center for JECS, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan).
References
- 1. Oyelese Y, Ananth CV. Placental abruption. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2006;108(4):1005–16. pmid:17012465
- 2. Tikkanen M. Placental abruption: epidemiology, risk factors and consequences. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90(2):140–9. Epub 2011/01/19. pmid:21241259.
- 3. Ananth CV, Berkowitz GS, Savitz DA, Lapinski RH. Placental abruption and adverse perinatal outcomes. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association. 1999;282(17):1646–51. Epub 1999/11/30. pmid:10553791.
- 4. Brosens I, Pijnenborg R, Vercruysse L, Romero R. The "Great Obstetrical Syndromes" are associated with disorders of deep placentation. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 2011;204(3):193–201. Epub 2010/11/26. pmid:21094932; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3369813.
- 5. Elsasser DA, Ananth CV, Prasad V, Vintzileos AM. Diagnosis of placental abruption: relationship between clinical and histopathological findings. European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology. 2010;148(2):125–30. Epub 2009/11/10. pmid:19897298; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2814948.
- 6. Class QA, Lichtenstein P, Långström N, D'Onofrio BM. Timing of prenatal maternal exposure to severe life events and adverse pregnancy outcomes: A population study of 2.6 million pregnancies. Psychosomatic medicine. 2011;73(3):234–41. pmid:21321257
- 7. Khashan AS, McNamee R, Abel KM, Pedersen MG, Webb RT, Kenny LC, et al. Reduced infant birthweight consequent upon maternal exposure to severe life events. Psychosomatic medicine. 2008;70(6):688–94. pmid:18606728
- 8. László KD, Liu XQ, Svensson T, Wikström AK, Li J, Olsen J, et al. Psychosocial stress related to the loss of a close relative the year before or during pregnancy and risk of preeclampsia. Hypertension. 2013;62(1):183–9. pmid:23608651
- 9. Laszlo KD, Ananth CV, Wikstrom AK, Svensson T, Li J, Olsen J, et al. Loss of a close family member the year before or during pregnancy and the risk of placental abruption: a cohort study from Denmark and Sweden. Psychological medicine. 2013:1–12. Epub 2013/09/27. pmid:24067196.
- 10. De Paz NC, Sanchez SE, Huaman LE, Chang GD, Pacora PN, Garcia PJ, et al. Risk of placental abruption in relation to maternal depressive, anxiety and stress symptoms. Journal of affective disorders. 2011;130(1–2):280–4. pmid:20692040
- 11. Kawamoto T, Nitta H, Murata K, Toda E, Tsukamoto N, Hasegawa M, et al. Rationale and study design of the Japan environment and children's study (JECS). BMC public health. 2014;14:25. Epub 2014/01/15. pmid:24410977; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3893509.
- 12. Michikawa T, Nitta H, Nakayama SF, Ono M, Yonemoto J, Tamura K, et al. The Japan Environment and Children's Study (JECS): A Preliminary Report on Selected Characteristics of Approximately 10 000 Pregnant Women Recruited During the First Year of the Study. Journal of epidemiology / Japan Epidemiological Association. 2015;25(6):452–8. Epub 2015/04/29. pmid:25912098; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4444500.
- 13. Michikawa T, Nitta H, Nakayama SF, Yamazaki S, Isobe T, Tamura K, et al. Baseline Profile of Participants in the Japan Environment and Children's Study (JECS). Journal of epidemiology / Japan Epidemiological Association. 2018;28(2):99–104. Epub 2017/11/03. pmid:29093304; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5792233.
- 14. Kessler RC, Barker PR, Colpe LJ, Epstein JF, Gfroerer JC, Hiripi E, et al. Screening for serious mental illness in the general population. Archives of general psychiatry. 2003;60(2):184–9. pmid:12578436
- 15. Furukawa TA, Kessler RC, Slade T, Andrews G. The performance of the K6 and K10 screening scales for psychological distress in the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-Being. Psychological medicine. 2003;33(2):357–62. pmid:12622315.
- 16. Kessler RC, Barker PR, Colpe LJ, Epstein JF, Gfroerer JC, Hiripi E, et al. Screening for serious mental illness in the general population. Archives of general psychiatry. 2003;60(2):184–9. pmid:12578436.
- 17. Furukawa TA, Kawakami N, Saitoh M, Ono Y, Nakane Y, Nakamura Y, et al. The performance of the Japanese version of the K6 and K10 in the World Mental Health Survey Japan. International journal of methods in psychiatric research. 2008;17(3):152–8. Epub 2008/09/04. pmid:18763695.
- 18. Sakurai K, Nishi A, Kondo K, Yanagida K, Kawakami N. Screening performance of K6/K10 and other screening instruments for mood and anxiety disorders in Japan. Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences. 2011;65(5):434–41. Epub 2011/08/20. pmid:21851452.
- 19. Jablensky AV, Morgan V, Zubrick SR, Bower C, Yellachich LA. Pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal complications in a population cohort of women with schizophrenia and major affective disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2005;162(1):79–91. pmid:15625205
- 20. Crnic KA, Greenberg MT. Minor parenting stresses with young children. Child development. 1990;61(5):1628–37. Epub 1990/10/01. pmid:2245752.
- 21. Baumann P, Blackwell SC, Schild C, Berry SM, Friedrich HJ. Mathematic modeling to predict abruptio placentae. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 2000;183(4):815–22. Epub 2000/10/18. pmid:11035319.
- 22. Wang R, Lagakos SW, Ware JH, Hunter DJ, Drazen JM. Statistics in medicine—reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(21):2189–94. pmid:18032770.
- 23. Markovitz JH, Jonas BS, Davidson K. Psychologic factors as precursors to hypertension. Current Hypertension Reports. 2001;3(1):25–32. pmid:11177704
- 24. Steptoe A, Hamer M, Chida Y. The effects of acute psychological stress on circulating inflammatory factors in humans: A review and meta-analysis. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity. 2007;21(7):901–12. pmid:17475444
- 25. Coussons-Read ME, Okun ML, Nettles CD. Psychosocial stress increases inflammatory markers and alters cytokine production across pregnancy. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity. 2007;21(3):343–50. pmid:17029703
- 26. Von Känel R, Mills PJ, Fainman C, Dimsdale JE. Effects of psychological stress and psychiatric disorders on blood coagulation and fibrinolysis: A biobehavioral pathway to coronary artery disease? Psychosomatic medicine. 2001;63(4):531–44. pmid:11485106
- 27. Khatun S, Kobayashi T, Belayet H, Sumimoto K, Iwaki T, Kanayama N. Local cold stress to the soles induces retroplacental hemorrhage in rats. Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis. 2001;27(2):79–86. pmid:11372774
- 28. Rydhstrom H, Walles B, Owman C. Myometrial norepinephrine in human pregnancy. Elevated levels in various disorders leading to cesarean section. Journal of Reproductive Medicine for the Obstetrician and Gynecologist. 1989;34(11):901–4. pmid:2585392
- 29. Cohen LS, Rosenbaum JF, Heller VL. Panic attack-associated placental abruption: a case report. The Journal of clinical psychiatry. 1989;50(7):266–7. Epub 1989/07/01. pmid:2738032.
- 30. Watanabe A, Nakao K, Tokuyama M, Takeda M. Prediction of first episode of panic attack among white-collar workers. Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences. 2005;59(2):119–26. Epub 2005/04/13. pmid:15823155.
- 31. Roy-Byrne PP, Craske MG, Stein MB. Panic disorder. Lancet. 2006;368(9540):1023–32. Epub 2006/09/19. pmid:16980119.
- 32. Kessler RC, Stang PE, Wittchen HU, Ustun TB, Roy-Burne PP, Walters EE. Lifetime panic-depression comorbidity in the National Comorbidity Survey. Archives of general psychiatry. 1998;55(9):801–8. Epub 1998/09/15. pmid:9736006.
- 33.
APA. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3rd edn, revised. American Psychiatric Association: Washington, DC. 1987.
- 34. Rothman KJ. No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons. Epidemiology. 1990;1(1):43–6. Epub 1990/01/01. pmid:2081237.
- 35. Glynn LM, Schetter CD, Wadhwa PD, Sandman CA. Pregnancy affects appraisal of negative life events. Journal of psychosomatic research. 2004;56(1):47–52. pmid:14987963
- 36. Matsuda Y, Hayashi K, Shiozaki A, Kawamichi Y, Satoh S, Saito S. Comparison of risk factors for placental abruption and placenta previa: case-cohort study. The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research. 2011;37(6):538–46. Epub 2011/03/08. pmid:21375675.
- 37.
Chatterjee S, Hadi AS. Regression analysis by example. 4th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2006.