Older first time mothers at risk of developing psychosis.

Older mothers at risk of psychosis: study
Published: 10 Feb 09 09:22 CET
Online: http://www.thelocal.se/17478/20090210/

First-time mothers over the age of 35 run a greater risk of suffering from a psychosis after delivery than younger women, a new Swedish study conducted at Karolinska Institutet (KI) shows.

The researchers at Karolinska Institutet in Solna found that women who were 35 and above were 2.4 times more likely to suffer from postpartal psychosis in the 90 days after giving birth than first-time mothers aged 19 or younger.

"The risk of psychosis increases sharply in close relation with the birth of a first child for women both with and without a previous psychiatric diagnosis," said one of the researchers, Dr Unnur Valdimarsdóttir, in a statement from KI on Tuesday.

Post-partum psychosis is, in contrast with post-natal depression, relatively unusual, KI writes.

The study compared the data of 750,000 women who gave birth to their first child in Sweden between 1983 and 2000.

Researchers found that 892 of the women in the study (1.2 in every 1,000 births) were hospitalized for a psychotic illness within 90 days of their first delivery. Almost 50 percent, 436 women, became ill for the first time.

Researchers paid particular attention to women with no history of psychiatric illness. Comparisons were made on the basis of several background factors, such as age, education and delivery characteristics.

"We know from previous studies that women who've had a previous psychiatric condition are more likely to develop postpartum psychosis," said Valdimarsdóttir.

"Our intention in this study was to identify factors that increase the risk of postpartum psychosis in women without a history of psychiatric hospitalisation."

High birth weight and maternal diabetes were however also found to correlate with a lower risk of psychosis and Dr Valdimarsdóttir said more studies were needed to better understand the causal factors, such as hormonal changes during labour.

The risk of developing a psychosis declined considerably after the 90 days had passed, the study concluded.

but it wont happen to me, my dna is perfick.. i will bring the next golden child. it will never happen to me...

oh shit.. it has happened to me.. but i wont tell anyone its a chore but i will say its wonderful????

(sarcasm mode off

*********************************************************************************************************************************
I just post the stories, for interest.. for everyone

Lord, what fools these mortals be!
- A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene ii

Voltaire said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

H.L.Mencken wrote:"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein

And I just had a woman on another board say "childless women are at a higher risk for breast cancer". Sure enough, there's data that supports that fact.

Great, another thing to worry about. Don't have kids and get cancer, have kids and go psycho. You can't win.

It's the chicken and the egg thing- is the late stage mother going to be weird about the pregnancy/birth to begin with or does the arrival of the child push an already ticking mother over some sort of edge?

I have to question the validity of the childless = cancer studies. I mean, how big were they? Were they double-blind (best kind)? Who funded them? Is it pregnancy that lowers the risk? Or childbirth? Or breastfeeding?

But I digress. Even if there is compelling evidence, I'd rather take my chances with the cancer. I can have cancerous boobs removed. After a kid is born, no such luck. Anyway, I've been pregnant twice. Does that count?

If I got as little sleep as the typical newmoo, I'd hear voices and see things, too. More than usual, that is.

Quote
Rose Red
It's the chicken and the egg thing- is the late stage mother going to be weird about the pregnancy/birth to begin with or does the arrival of the child push an already ticking mother over some sort of edge?

Exactly, if you are nuts enough to want to breed beyond the age of 40, in spite of all the evidence that it is NOT awesome, doesn't having a baby merely make for a shorter, easier trip to crazy land?

"It truly is the one commonality that every designation of humans you can think of has, there's at least one asshole."
--Me

Plus when you're older you're already more settled in your ways...and a kid is therefore a proportionately larger disruption IMO than when you are younger and more plastic/not experienced enough to appreciate the huge difference.

It is the break in estrogen with a pignasty that decreases the risk of breast cancer. Therefore, if you're CF there is no break and you have estrogen levels every month every year which can be 'too much'. Childed moos get a break for every 9 months they are in pig. I know this isn't the best medical way to explain it but there it is.

Quote
CF Uter
It is the break in estrogen with a pignasty that decreases the risk of breast cancer. Therefore, if you're CF there is no break and you have estrogen levels every month every year which can be 'too much'. Childed moos get a break for every 9 months they are in pig. I know this isn't the best medical way to explain it but there it is.

If it's kids or cancer, I'll take the cancer.

I just think it's very wrong to encourage people to think "I'll have to have kids to reduce my CHANCES of getting breast cancer", it doesn't mean they won't get it, it just means the chance they will is decreased by a few percentage points. And if their family history is cancer prone, which would greatly increase their chances, doesn't that negate any those benefits from having a child?

"It truly is the one commonality that every designation of humans you can think of has, there's at least one asshole."
--Me