Retrospective cohort study examines short interdelivery interval impacts on anemia and depression in women, suggesting important maternal health implications.
Background/Objectives: Short interdelivery interval (IDI) is associated with adverse perinatal outcomes, but its relationship with objective neonatal acid–base markers, postpartum anemia, and early postnatal depression remains poorly characterized. We examined IDI < 24 months across four pre-specified outcome domains: neonatal acid–base status, maternal composite morbidity, postpartum anemia, and early postnatal depression. Methods: This single-center retrospective cohort study included 851 women with two consecutive singleton live births at Ankara Etlik City Hospital between 2023 and 2025. Women were classified by IDI as short (<24 months; n = 635) or standard (≥24 months; n = 216). Multivariable logistic regression provided the primary inference. Sensitivity analyses included inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), restricted cubic splines (4 df), within-mother paired analysis, multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE × 20), Firth penalization, E-values, and Benjamini–Hochberg false discovery rate (FDR) correction across 13 outcomes. Results: After FDR correction, short IDI was associated with postpartum anemia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26–2.68; q = 0.022) and with an Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale score ≥13 (aOR 1.93, 95% CI 1.20–3.10; q = 0.042); umbilical-artery pH < 7.10 did not cross the FDR threshold (aOR 2.37, 1.17–4.82; q = 0.075) and is reported as an exploratory, hypothesis-generating signal. Postpartum anemia did not mediate the IDI–depression association (proportion mediated 0.6%, 95% CI −13.1% to +13.5%). Conclusions: Short IDI was associated with maternal hematologic and psychosocial signals; the IDI–depression link appears non-hematologic. Neonatal acid–base findings did not meet the FDR threshold and are exploratory. Multicenter validation is warranted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Eroğlu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: