| Literature DB >> 33898837 |
R-L Punamäki1, M Flykt1,2, R Belt3, J Lindblom1,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Maternal prenatal substance use disorder (SUD) represents a dual risk for child wellbeing due to teratogenic impacts and parenting problems often inherent in SUD. One potential mechanism transferring this risk is altered development of children's emotion regulation (ER). The present study examines how mother's prenatal SUD and early mother-infant interaction quality predict children's ER in middle childhood.Entities:
Keywords: Emotion regulation; Maternal substance use; Middle childhood; Mother-infant interaction; Prenatal exposure; Prospective study
Year: 2021 PMID: 33898837 PMCID: PMC8055553 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06728
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Figure 1Flow-chart of the prospective developmental study of substance using and comparison mothers and their children.
Associations between substance use group status and background variables.
| SUD | Comparison | χ2 (1) | p | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | |||
| Child sex | 0.84 | .36 | ||||
| Girl | 17 | 37% | 20 | 46.5% | ||
| Boy | 29 | 63% | 23 | 53.5% | ||
| Mother's marital status | 18.31 | |||||
| Married or cohabiting | 28 | 57.1% | 47 | 94% | ||
| Single | 21 | 42.9% | 3 | 6% | ||
| Mother's education level | 27.43 | |||||
| Lower | 47 | 94% | 23 | 46% | ||
| Higher | 3 | 6% | 27 | 54% | ||
| Economic problems | 21.17 | |||||
| Yes | 37 | 74% | 14 | 28% | ||
| No | 13 | 26% | 36 | 72% | ||
| Parity | 0.008 | .93 | ||||
| Primiparous | 23 | 45.1% | 23 | 46% | ||
| Multiparous | 28 | 54.9% | 27 | 54% | ||
Note. SUD = Substance use disorder. Background variables were measured at T1 (pregnancy) except for child sex which was measured at T2. The significant p-values for differences are in bold.
Associations between background and study variables.
| Maternal EA | Child EA | ER: Dysregulation | ER: Adaptive emotion regulation | ER: Inhibition | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | Sd | M | Sd | M | Sd | M | Sd | M | Sd | |||||||||||
| Child sex | 0.93 (86) | .35 | 1.00 (86) | .32 | -0.42 (47) | .68 | 0.04 (47) | .97 | -0.64 (47) | .52 | ||||||||||
| | 4.66 | 0.83 | 4.15 | 0.95 | 1.84 | 0.30 | 1.98 | 0.32 | 1.55 | 0.28 | ||||||||||
| | 4.47 | 1.04 | 3.92 | 1.11 | 1.88 | 0.35 | 1.98 | 0.37 | 1.60 | 0.27 | ||||||||||
| Marital status | 1.16 (87) | .25 | 1.12 (87) | .27 | -0.80 (48) | .43 | 0.58 (48) | .57 | 0.19 (48) | .85 | ||||||||||
| | 4.62 | 0.93 | 4.11 | 1.08 | 1.87 | 0.32 | 2.00 | 0.33 | 1.59 | 0.29 | ||||||||||
| | 4.35 | 1.06 | 3.81 | 1.00 | 1.97 | 0.41 | 1.93 | 0.36 | 1.58 | 0.17 | ||||||||||
| Education level | -3.03 (88) | -2.69 (88) | 0.95 (48) | .35 | -1.49 (48) | .14 | -0.13 (48) | .90 | ||||||||||||
| | 4.35 | 0.98 | 3.83 | 1.07 | 1.93 | 0.33 | 1.93 | 0.33 | 1.59 | 0.21 | ||||||||||
| | 4.98 | 0.80 | 4.45 | 0.91 | 1.83 | 0.35 | 2.07 | 0.33 | 1.60 | 0.35 | ||||||||||
| Economic problems | -1.92 (87) | .058 | -2.31 (87) | 0.59 (48) | .56 | -0.13 (48) | .90 | 0.63 (48) | .53 | |||||||||||
| | 4.36 | 0.98 | 3.78 | 1.10 | 1.92 | 0.33 | 1.98 | 0.28 | 1.62 | 0.26 | ||||||||||
| | 4.75 | 0.92 | 4.29 | 0.97 | 1.87 | 0.35 | 1.99 | 0.38 | 1.57 | 0.28 | ||||||||||
| Parity | -1.40 (89) | .17 | -1.30 (89) | .20 | 1.44 (49) | .16 | 0.40 (49) | .69 | -0.98 (49) | .33 | ||||||||||
| | 4.42 | .97 | 3.89 | 1.20 | 1.95 | 0.34 | 1.99 | 0.31 | 1.54 | 0.19 | ||||||||||
| | 4.70 | .96 | 4.17 | 0.90 | 1.81 | 0.34 | 1.96 | 0.36 | 1.62 | 0.33 | ||||||||||
Note: EA = Emotional availability. The significant p-values for differences are in bold.
Mother's substance use and child emotion regulation.
| Dysregulation | Adaptive regulation | Inhibition | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SUD group status | .16 | 0.17 | [-.18, .49] | .35 | -.47 | 0.12 | [-.71, -.23] | <.001 | .07 | 0.18 | [-.28, .42] | .69 |
| Child age | -.21 | 0.20 | [-.61, .18] | .29 | -.06 | 0.16 | [-.38, .25] | .70 | -.10 | 0.20 | [-.48, .29] | .63 |
| Education level | .02 | 0.12 | [-.21, .24] | .88 | .02 | 0.11 | [-.30, .25] | .86 | .09 | 0.15 | [-.20, .38] | .56 |
| Economic problems | .15 | 0.11 | [-.07, .36] | .19 | -.11 | 0.14 | [-.39, .16] | .42 | .04 | 0.14 | [-.24, .32] | .77 |
| Effect size | R2 | R2 | R2 | |||||||||
Note. ∗p < .05.
Mother's substance use, maternal EA and child emotion regulation.
| Dysregulation | Adaptive regulation | Inhibition | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SUD group status | .05 | .18 | [-.31, .41] | .80 | -.49 | .20 | [-.89, -.10] | .02 | .01 | .24 | [-.46, .49] | .95 |
| Mother's EA | -.33 | .15 | [-.62, -.05] | .02 | .11 | .19 | [-.25, .47] | .55 | -.01 | .13 | [-.27, .24] | .92 |
| Child age | -.20 | .18 | [-.55, .15] | .27 | .02 | .18 | [-.33, .37] | .91 | -.05 | .21 | [-.45, .35] | .80 |
| Educational level | .08 | .13 | [-.17, .32] | .54 | -.01 | .14 | [-.28, .26] | .95 | .12 | .17 | [-.22, .46] | .49 |
| Economic problems | .03 | .16 | [-.29, .35] | .85 | -.23 | .14 | [-.52, .04] | .10 | -.06 | .15 | [-.36, .25] | .72 |
| Effect size | R2 | R2 = .25∗ | R2 | |||||||||
Note. EA = Emotional availability.
∗p < .05.
Mother's substance use, child EA and child emotion regulation.
| Dysregulation | Adaptive regulation | Inhibition | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SUD group status | .13 | .22 | [-.30, .55] | .57 | -.55 | .17 | [-.89, -.21] | .002 | -.03 | .25 | [-.52, .46] | .92 |
| Child EA | -.22 | .14 | [-.49, .05] | .11 | .02 | .15 | [-.27, .30] | .91 | -.05 | .15 | [-.35, .25] | .73 |
| Child age | -.16 | .20 | [-.54, .22] | .42 | .008 | .14 | [-.26, .28] | .95 | -.05 | .18 | [-.41, .31] | .79 |
| Educational level | .08 | .13 | [-.17, .34] | .53 | -.01 | .13 | [-.28, .25] | .91 | .11 | .17 | [-.23, .45] | .53 |
| Economic problems | .05 | .14 | [-.21, .32] | .71 | -.25 | .13 | [-.51, .001] | .051 | -.08 | .15 | [-.37, .22] | .61 |
| Effect size | R2 | R2 | R2 | |||||||||
Note. EA = Emotional availability.
∗p < .05.
Figure 2The early maternal emotional availability mediating between prenatal exposure to maternal drug abuse and children's emotion dysfunction. Note. The total indirect effect was significant, (β = .18, 95% CI [.09, 2.80], SE = .09, p = .04).