Comparing BirthMARQ scores across parent gender and mode of delivery
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for all study questionnaire measures. Mean BirthMARQ scores are shown by mode of birth (V, vaginal delivery versus C, caesarean section) for mothers and fathers in Fig. 1. Across mothers and fathers, the mean correlation between Birth MARQ scores and age was − .03, range = − .07 to .07, p > .05 for all. Likewise, separate t tests showed no education-related contrast in BirthMARQ scores for mothers, t(287) = .53, p = .599, Cohen’s d = 0.09, or fathers, t(277) = .27, p = .784, Cohen’s d = 0.10.
Intra- and inter-personal effects in links between BirthMARQ scores and wellbeing
Given strong within-person correlations (see Table 2), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in Mplus 7 (Muthén and Muthén 2017) was performed on the raw scores of each indicator to create a single latent factor for depressive and anxiety symptoms for mothers and fathers at each time-point. Note that the lead indicator intercept was set to 0 for each latent factor so that each latent factor mean could be freely estimated (Geiser 2013). A single measurement model of correlated latent factors for mothers and fathers across the two time points provided a good fit, χ2 (214) = 341.161, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.038, CFI = 0.969, TLI = 0.960.
Table 2 Correlations between measures (maternal below diagonal and paternal above diagonal) from time 1 to time 2 Next, we used an actor-partner interdependence model (APIM, Cook and Kenny 2005) to examine associations between couples and links between antenatal wellbeing, mode of delivery, birth experience and postnatal wellbeing. An APIM accounts for the inherently related nature of data from couples (Cook and Kenny 2005) and allows exploration of actor effects (i.e. intrapersonal) and partner effects (i.e. interpersonal) on outcomes. Following this, we examined whether birth experience mediated the association between mode of delivery and poor wellbeing at 4 months. A model to test for this indirect effect was specified in Mplus using bootstrapping procedures (5000 bootstrap samples) (Hayes 2009). Model parameters and standard errors were estimated in Mplus using all available data (Muthén and Muthén 2017). Please see Supplementary Material 2 for detail of model construction and testing.
Our unconstrained APIM examining intra- and inter-personal effects of antenatal wellbeing and birth experience on postnatal wellbeing showed a good fit to the data, RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.93 and TLI = 0.91, and explained 21.5% of the variance in mothers’ postnatal wellbeing and 31.1% of the variance in fathers’ postnatal wellbeing. To test for gender differences in the strength of the pathways, model constraints were built up so that in turn, all pathways were constrained to equality and changes to model fit were examined. Compared to the baseline model, a nested model constraining all pathways to equality did not provide a better fit to the data, Δχ2 (6) = 35.54, p < .000, suggesting the strength of the associations between antenatal wellbeing and birth experience and postnatal wellbeing was different for mothers and fathers. A model freeing the autoregressive pathways (i.e. postnatal wellbeing on antenatal wellbeing), while constraining all other pathways to equality did not significantly worsen model fit when compared to the baseline model, Δχ2 (3) = 2.86, p = .414, suggesting that there was greater stability in wellbeing across the transition to parenthood for fathers than for mothers.
Our unconstrained APIM (Cook and Kenny 2005) is illustrated by the standardised path coefficients in Fig. 2. Overall, this model highlights five findings. First, across the transition to parenthood individual differences in wellbeing were moderately stable for mothers, β = 0.40, 95%CI [.23, .54], p < .000, and highly stable for fathers, β = 0.51, 95%CI [.36, .64], p = .000. Second, in comparison with the modest within-couple associations in self-reported wellbeing at antenatal, β = 0.21, 95%CI [.07, .34], p = .012 and postnatal visits, β = 0.31, 95%CI [.16, .44], p < .000, the moderately strong within-couple association in BirthMARQ scores, β = 0.42, 95%CI [.33, .51], p < .000, indicates good agreement between parents. Third, there was an effect of country on mothers’ wellbeing at 4 months, β = − 0.15, 95%CI [− .25, − .04], p = .022, but no effect of race on either mothers’ or fathers’ wellbeing at 4 months. Fourth, the actor pathways between poor antenatal wellbeing and negative birth experiences appeared stronger (though not significantly different in strength) for mothers, β = 0.13 95%CI [.03, .24], p = .036, than fathers, β = 0.12 95%CI [− .05, .18], p = .081. Actor pathways between negative birth memories and poor wellbeing at 4 months were also similar in strength for mothers, β = 0.13 95%CI [.03, .24], p = .035, and fathers, β = 0.15 95%CI [.06, .26], p = .009. Finally, the total indirect effect of mode of birth via negative birth experience on postnatal wellbeing was significant, β = .73 95%CI [.25, 1.15], p = .026, and evident for both mothers, β = .37 95%CI [.10, .80], and fathers, β = .37 95%CI [.09, .90]. Additional analyses excluding mothers with elective rather than emergency C-sections yielded very similar results.