Skip to main content

Maternal depression can impact child mental and physical health

Maternal depression has been repeatedly linked with negative childhood outcomes, including increased psychopathology.  Now, a new study shows that depression in mothers may impact on their children's stress levels,  as well as their physical and mental well-being throughout life.

In the study, published in the journal  Depression & Anxiety,  the researchers followed 125 children from birth to 10 years.

At 10 years old, the mothers’ and children’s cortisol (CT) and secretory immunoglobulin (s-IgA)—markers of stress and the immune system (see below)—were measured, and mother-child interaction was observed.

Psychiatric assessment 

The mothers and children also had psychiatric diagnoses, and the children's externalising and internalising symptoms were reported.



Internalising disorders include depression, withdrawal, anxiety, and loneliness. They are often how we 'feel inside', such as anger, pain, fear or hurt, but may not show it In contrast, externalising symptoms exhibit themselves in behaviours such as delinquency and aggression.  They are what we do rather than what we feel.



Immunoglobulins are used by the immune system to neutralise pathogens, such as harmful bacteria.  They are produced by specialised cells of the immune system (B cells) and come in two main types.  A soluble form is secreted by the cells (s-IgA) and can be found in the plasma.  The other kind is attached to cell membranes.  The immunoglobulins produced are continually modified to recognise and neutralise new invaders.  Thus, the presence of s-IgA is a marker of immune system function.

Cortisol is produced by the adrenal glands.  The amount of cortisol is controlled by a part of the brain called the hypothalamus and the pituitary gland.   This axis (the Hypothalamus-Pituitary-Adrenal axis) is our body's alarm system.

Usually, the alarm will switch off once the event is over, but what happens if the alarm doesn't switch off, and cortisol remains at persistently high levels?  Then it can lead to anxiety and depression and other pathologies.


Impact on the alarm system of the body

In the study,  the depressed mothers had higher CT and s-IgA levels, and their parenting was characterised by higher negativity, intrusion, and hostility.


HPA-axis malfunction,  and higher s-IgA evening levels were found in both the depressed mothers and their children.
Children of these depressed mothers tended to exhibit certain psychiatric disorders, had higher s-IgA levels and displayed greater social withdrawal.

The associations between maternal depression, lower maternal sensitivity, and negative maternal care are well established with previous studies describing the adverse outcomes of such parenting, including insecure attachment and child behaviour problems.

The lead author of the study, Dr Ruth Feldman, of the Interdisciplinary Centre Herzliya in Israel, says

Following mothers and children across the first decade of life, we found that exposure to maternal depression impairs functioning of the child's immune system and stress response. Such disruptions to the child's stress and immune system, in turn, led to greater child psychopathology.  

The study also found that the impairments to the child's stress response and immunity were shaped by similar effects of the depression on the mothers' stress and immune system and their consequent impact on reducing the quality of maternal caregiving.

Our findings show the complex effects of maternal depression on children's physiology, health, and psychopathology and advocate the need for early interventions that specifically target maternal stress and enhance parenting behaviour.






Comments

  1. Very informative post. Children of mothers suffering from maternal depression are more likely to have cognitive, neurological and motor delays. Thanks for the information. Keep sharing!
    Regards,
    Novela Neurotechnologies
    https://novelaneuro.com

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha