Abstract
INTRODUCTION
Maternal smoking during pregnancy (MSDP) has been suggested as a potential contributor to adolescent mental health problems, yet existing evidence remains inconsistent. This study aimed to examine the association between MSDP and anxiety and poor mental health outcomes among US adolescents.
METHODS
This is a secondary analysis of pooled cross-sectional data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2007–2012, which employs a complex, multistage probability sampling design to ensure national representativeness. A total of 1445 adolescents aged 12–15 years were included. MSDP was assessed via parental report. Anxiety and poor mental health symptoms were measured by self-reported numbers of days feeling anxious or mentally unwell in the past 30 days. Weighted negative binomial regression and logistic regression models were used to estimate the rate ratio (RR) and odds ratio (OR), accounting for the complex survey design. Sensitivity analyses were performed using unweighted logistic regression models.
RESULTS
Of the participants, 14.9% were exposed to MSDP. The prevalence of high anxiety (23.2% vs 12.4%, p=0.002) and poor mental health (28.2% vs 12.3%, p=0.001) was greater in the MSDP-exposed group than in the unexposed group. After full adjustment, MSDP was associated with a 1.68-fold increase in the number of anxiety days (95% CI: 1.19–2.37) and a 1.97-fold increase in the number of poor mental health days (95% CI: 1.40–2.77). As categorical outcomes, MSDP was also associated with higher odds of severe anxiety (adjusted odds ratio, AOR=3.03; 95% CI: 1.45–6.29) and severe poor mental health (AOR=3.11; 95% CI: 1.55–6.24). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these associations.
CONCLUSIONS
In this cross-sectional study, MSDP was associated with a higher likelihood of anxiety and poor mental health in adolescents. Given the study design, causality cannot be established. Future longitudinal studies are warranted to confirm these findings and explore potential underlying mechanisms.
Keywords: maternal smoking during pregnancy, adolescent mental health, anxiety, poor mental health, NHANES
INTRODUCTION
Adolescence is a crucial developmental stage during which mental health disorders, particularly anxiety and depression, commonly manifest1. Epidemiological data indicate that approximately 11.6% of adolescents are affected by anxiety disorders, while 12.9% experience depressive disorders2,3. The prevalence of these conditions rises substantially by early adolescence: by the age of 14 years, approximately 38% of adolescents exhibit symptoms of anxiety, and 3.1% are clinically diagnosed with depression4,5. As a major global health burden, adolescent mental health requires attention, yet the prevalence and burden of anxiety and depression have shown minimal decline over recent decades1,6.
Maternal smoking during pregnancy (MSDP) is a well-established modifiable risk factor associated with various adverse health outcomes in offspring7-9. Despite known risks, MSDP remains prevalent, with approximately 25% of pregnant women in Western countries continuing to smoke, with over 70% of these being daily users10. Although a number of studies have linked MSDP to offspring internalizing behaviors such as anxiety and depression, the evidence remains inconclusive. Some studies report that MSDP increases the likelihood of anxiety and depression in early adulthood by 45% and 75%, respectively11, while a large Norwegian cohort study found that the association was no longer significant by the age of 5 years12. Similarly, a propensity-score-matched analysis reported no significant association13. Furthermore, sibling studies that control for shared family environments have produced conflicting results14-16.
Given the preventability of MSDP, its association with adolescent mental health deserves further investigation using nationally representative data. This study uses pooled cross-sectional data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2007–2012 to examine the relationship between MSDP and anxiety and poor mental health symptoms in US adolescents aged 12–15 years.
METHODS
Study design and population
This is a secondary analysis of pooled cross-sectional data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2007–2012. NHANES is conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) to assess the health and nutritional status of the US non-institutionalized civilian population. The survey employs a complex, multistage probability sampling strategy to ensure national representativeness17. The study protocol was approved by the NCHS Research Ethics Review Board, and informed consent was obtained from all participants.
The study included adolescents aged 12–15 years whose mothers provided information on smoking during pregnancy and who had complete data on anxiety and mental health outcomes. Exclusion criteria were: 1) missing maternal smoking during pregnancy data (n=19721); 2) missing anxiety or mental health data (n=8973); and 3) missing covariate data (n=303). A total of 1445 participants were included in the final analysis (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
Flowchart of participant enrollment from NHANES 2007–2012
Maternal smoking during pregnancy (MSDP)
In the NHANES 2007–2012 dataset, the variable ‘Mother smoked when pregnant’ was assessed among participants aged 1–15 years through a questionnaire asking if their biological mother smoked at any time during her pregnancy with the participant. Responses affirming maternal smoking were classified as ‘MSDP’, while negative responses were classified as ‘no MSDP’.
Anxiety and poor mental health assessment
Anxiety was assessed in private interviews with respondents aged ≥12 years, using the following question: ‘In the past 30 days, how many days have you felt worried, nervous, or anxious?’. Based on previous research methods, anxiety was categorized as low anxiety (0–6 days) or high anxiety (7–30 days)17. Mental health was assessed with the following question: ‘Thinking back over the past 30 days, how was your mental health, including stress, depression, and emotional problems? How many days did you feel your mental health was poor?’. Similarly, individuals were categorized into better mental health (0–6 days of poor mental health) or poor mental health (7–30 days of poor mental health)17. To further rigorously define mental health status, a stricter criterion was used, with 15–30 days being classified as severe anxiety or severe poor mental health.
Potential covariates
Covariates were selected a priori based on existing literature and included the following: age (categorical: 12, 13, 14, and 15 years), sex (male, female), race/ethnicity (Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Black, Other), BMI (categorized as <25, 25–29.9, and ≥30 kg/m2), family poverty income ratio (PIR; categorized as <1.3, 1.3–3.5, and ≥3.5), household size (categorized as ≤4 and ≥5), household head’s education level (<high school, high school, >high school), the adolescent’s education level (elementary school, middle school, high school), hypertension (yes, no), health insurance status (yes, no), routine healthcare access (yes, no), physical activity (inactive, moderate, vigorous), maternal age at birth (continuous, years), low birth weight (yes, no), parental marital status (married/cohabiting, never married, widowed/divorced/separated), and self-reported poor physical health (yes, no).
Statistical analysis
To ensure that the study population was representative of the US population, we accounted for the complex sampling design and sampling weights in the analysis. Normality tests were conducted for continuous variables, with normally distributed data presented as means (standard errors), and skewed data presented as medians (interquartile ranges). Group comparisons were performed using Student’s t-test (for normally distributed data) or the Mann-Whitney U test (for skewed data). Categorical variables were expressed as weighted percentages, and comparisons were made using chi-squared tests.
To assess the relationship between maternal smoking during pregnancy (MSDP) and anxiety and poor mental health, we used the number of days participants felt anxious or had poor mental health in the past 30 days as count and categorical data, applying weighted negative binomial regression models and logistic regression models to calculate relative risk (RR) and odds ratio (OR). Three models were used in this study: Model 1: the unadjusted crude model; Model 2: adjusted for adolescent age, sex, race/ethnicity, family PIR, household size, household head’s education level, and adolescent’s education level; Model 3: the fully adjusted model, further adjusted for BMI, hypertension, physical activity, health insurance status, routine healthcare access, maternal age at birth, low birth weight, parental marital status, and self-reported poor physical health.
As a sensitivity analysis, unweighted logistic regression models were also performed to evaluate the robustness of the findings under an unweighted framework. Multicollinearity among covariates was assessed using variance inflation factors (VIF) based on an unweighted logistic regression model. All equivalent VIF values GVIF(1/2df) were <5, indicating no serious multicollinearity in the fully adjusted models. All analyses were conducted using R version 4.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) with the survey package. A two-sided p<0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS
Baseline characteristics of participants
Table 1 presents the baseline characteristics of a total of 1445 adolescents aged 12–15 years from NHANES 2007–2012, stratified by MSDP. Approximately 14.9% of the adolescents were exposed to MSDP. Mothers in the MSDP group were generally younger compared with those in the no MSDP group (median: 25.0 vs 28.0 years, p<0.001). The proportion of low-birth-weight infants was higher in the MSDP group (19.2% vs 8.9%, p=0.004). Significant differences between groups were observed in race/ethnicity, family poverty income ratio (PIR), household head’s education level, and parental marital status (all p<0.05). No significant differences were found in adolescent age, sex, body mass index (BMI), hypertension, adolescent education level, household size, physical activity, access to routine healthcare, health insurance status, or self-reported poor physical health (all p>0.05).
Table 1.
Baseline characteristics of US adolescents aged 12–15 years, stratified by maternal smoking during pregnancy (MSDP), from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2007–2012 (N=1445)
| Characteristics |
Total (N=1445)
n (%) |
MSDP (N=183)
n (%) |
no MSDP (N=1262)
n (%) |
p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mother’s age at child’s birth (years), median (IQR) | 27.00 (23.00–31.00) | 25.00 (20.00–29.00) | 28.00 (23.00–32.00) | <0.001 |
| Age (years) | 0.572 | |||
| 12 | 348 (23.9) | 41 (22.2) | 307 (24.1) | |
| 13 | 366 (23.5) | 48 (26.5) | 318 (23.0) | |
| 14 | 386 (26.8) | 49 (22.9) | 337 (27.4) | |
| 15 | 345 (25.9) | 45 (28.4) | 300 (25.4) | |
| Sex | 0.369 | |||
| Male | 747 (50.6) | 91 (46.7) | 656 (51.3) | |
| Female | 698 (49.4) | 92 (53.3) | 606 (48.7) | |
| Race/ethnicity | <0.001 | |||
| Non-Hispanic White | 444 (60.4) | 101 (78.6) | 343 (57.2) | |
| Non-Hispanic Black | 346 (13.0) | 40 (9.9) | 306 (13.5) | |
| Other race | 655 (26.6) | 42 (11.5) | 613 (29.2) | |
| Family PIR | <0.001 | |||
| <1.3 | 591 (28.3) | 94 (39.7) | 497 (26.3) | |
| 1.3–3.5 | 529 (37.2) | 71 (45.7) | 458 (35.8) | |
| ≥3.5 | 325 (34.4) | 18 (14.6) | 307 (37.9) | |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 0.160 | |||
| <25 | 1028 (73.7) | 123 (65.3) | 905 (75.2) | |
| 25–29.9 | 239 (15.9) | 33 (19.8) | 206 (15.2) | |
| ≥30 | 178 (10.4) | 27 (15.0) | 151 (9.6) | |
| Hypertension | 0.977 | |||
| No | 1416 (98.3) | 180 (98.3) | 1236 (98.3) | |
| Yes | 29 (1.7) | 3 (1.7) | 26 (1.7) | |
| Education level | 0.578 | |||
| Elementary school | 137 (8.7) | 19 (11.1) | 118 (8.3) | |
| Middle school | 1033 (71.5) | 133 (68.9) | 900 (72.0) | |
| High school | 275 (19.7) | 31 (20.0) | 244 (19.7) | |
| Household size | 0.128 | |||
| ≤4 | 727 (57.9) | 105 (64.1) | 622 (56.8) | |
| ≥5 | 718 (42.1) | 78 (35.9) | 640 (43.2) | |
| Household head’s education level | 0.005 | |||
| <High school | 403 (19.3) | 53 (23.1) | 350 (18.7) | |
| High school | 314 (19.9) | 46 (29.0) | 268 (18.3) | |
| >High school | 728 (60.8) | 84 (47.9) | 644 (63.0) | |
| Parental marital status | 0.002 | |||
| Married/living with partner | 962 (73.3) | 100 (61.0) | 862 (75.4) | |
| Single/divorced/widowed | 483 (26.7) | 83 (39.0) | 400 (24.6) | |
| Physical activity | 0.550 | |||
| Inactive | 887 (55.5) | 105 (54.6) | 782 (55.6) | |
| Moderate | 418 (32.8) | 53 (31.1) | 365 (33.2) | |
| Vigorous | 140 (11.7) | 25 (14.3) | 115 (11.2) | |
| Poor physical health | 0.317 | |||
| No | 1317 (91.4) | 163 (89.1) | 1154 (91.9) | |
| Yes | 128 (8.6) | 20 (10.9) | 108 (8.1) | |
| Routine place to go for healthcare | 0.506 | |||
| Yes | 1351 (95.0) | 176 (96.5) | 1175 (94.7) | |
| No | 94 (5.0) | 7 (3.5) | 87 (5.3) | |
| Health insurance status | 0.514 | |||
| Yes | 1277 (90.3) | 162 (88.5) | 1115 (90.6) | |
| No | 168 (9.7) | 21 (11.5) | 147 (9.4) | |
| Low birth weight | 0.004 | |||
| No | 1266 (89.6) | 145 (80.8) | 1121 (91.1) | |
| Yes | 179 (10.4) | 38 (19.2) | 141 (8.9) | |
| High anxiety | 0.002 | |||
| No | 1252 (86.0) | 144 (76.8) | 1108 (87.6) | |
| Yes | 193 (14.0) | 39 (23.2) | 154 (12.4) | |
| Poor mental health | 0.001 | |||
| No | 1269 (85.3) | 142 (71.8) | 1127 (87.7) | |
| Yes | 176 (14.7) | 41 (28.2) | 135 (12.3) |
Values are presented as weighted percentages for categorical variables and weighted medians with interquartile range (IQR) for continuous variables, accounting for the complex survey design. P-values were calculated using the Rao-Scott χ² test for categorical variables and the Wald test for continuous variables. MSDP: maternal smoking during pregnancy. PIR: poverty income ratio. BMI: body mass index.
Relationship between MSDP and offspring anxiety and poor mental health
As shown in Supplementary file Figure S1, among adolescents whose mothers had MSDP, 23.2% reported experiencing ≥7 days of anxiety in the past month, and 28.2% reported ≥7 days of poor mental health. In contrast, the corresponding percentages in the no MSDP group were 12.4% for both anxiety and poor mental health, with significant differences between the two groups (p=0.001). Furthermore, the difference between the two groups was even greater for ≥15 days of anxiety (13.6% vs 4.7%) and poor mental health (17.7% vs 5.5%).
Table 2 presents the association between MSDP and anxiety and poor mental health outcomes. In the weighted negative binomial regression models, MSDP was associated with 1.68 times the number of anxiety days (adjusted rate ratio, ARR=1.68; 95% CI: 1.19–2.37; p=0.003) and 1.97 times the number of poor mental health days (ARR=1.97; 95% CI: 1.40–2.77; p<0.001) in the fully adjusted Model 3. When the outcome variables were analyzed as binary outcomes using weighted logistic regression, MSDP was associated with higher odds of high anxiety (≥7 days) (AOR=1.82; 95% CI: 1.03–3.21; p=0.039) and poor mental health (≥7 days) (AOR=2.28; 95% CI: 1.30–4.00; p=0.004). When the threshold was increased to ≥15 days, MSDP was associated with higher odds of severe anxiety (AOR=3.03; 95% CI: 1.45–6.29; p=0.003) and severe poor mental health (AOR=3.11; 95% CI: 1.55–6.24; p =0.001).
Table 2.
Weighted negative binomial regression and logistic regression models for the association between maternal smoking during pregnancy (MSDP) and anxiety and poor mental health outcomes among adolescents aged 12–15 years, NHANES 2007–2012 (N=1445)
| Variables | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RR (95% CI) | p | ARR (95% CI) | p | ARR (95% CI) | p | |
| Days of anxiety in the past 30 days | 1.80 (1.28–2.52) | 0.001 | 1.83 (1.28–2.62) | 0.001 | 1.68 (1.19–2.37) | 0.003 |
| Days of poor mental health in the past 30 days | 2.32 (1.69–3.20) | <0.001 | 2.12 (1.50–2.99) | <0.001 | 1.97 (1.40–2.77) | <0.001 |
| OR (95% CI) | AOR (95% CI) | AOR (95% CI) | ||||
| Higher anxiety (≥7 days) | 2.14 (1.32–3.48) | 0.002 | 2.09 (1.23–3.55) | 0.006 | 1.82 (1.03–3.21) | 0.039 |
| Poor mental health (≥7 days) | 2.79 (1.73–4.52) | <0.001 | 2.46 (1.43–4.24) | 0.001 | 2.28 (1.30–4.00) | 0.004 |
| Severe anxiety (≥15 days) | 3.22 (1.68–6.17) | <0.001 | 3.48 (1.76–6.87) | <0.001 | 3.03 (1.45–6.29) | 0.003 |
| Severe poor mental health (≥15 days) | 3.72 (2.03–6.80) | <0.001 | 3.12 (1.60–6.12) | 0.001 | 3.11 (1.55–6.24) | 0.001 |
All models accounted for the complex survey design of NHANES 2007–2012 by applying sampling weights. Model 1: unadjusted. Model 2: adjusted for adolescent age, sex, race/ethnicity, family PIR, household size, household head’s education level, and adolescent education level. Model 3: adjusted as for Model 2 plus BMI, hypertension, physical activity, health insurance status, routine healthcare access, maternal age at birth, low birth weight, parental marital status, and self-reported poor physical health. The reference group is the ‘No MSDP’ group for all models. A two-sided p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. ARR: adjusted rate ratio. AOR: adjusted odds ratio. PIR: poverty income ratio. BMI: body mass index.
Sensitivity analysis
When analyzing unweighted data and converting the outcome variables to categorical variables (with ≥7 days defining high anxiety and poor mental health), multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed (Table 3). In the fully adjusted Model 3, the odds of high anxiety (≥7 days) in the offspring of mothers with MSDP were 1.84 times those of the no MSDP group (AOR=1.84; 95% CI: 1.19–2.85; p=0.006), and the odds of poor mental health (≥7 days) were 2.01 times those of the no MSDP group (AOR=2.01; 95% CI: 1.29–3.12; p=0.002). When the threshold was increased (with ≥15 days defining severe anxiety and severe poor mental health), the results in Model 3 showed that the odds of severe anxiety (≥15 days) in the offspring of mothers with MSDP were 2.37 times higher than in the no MSDP group (AOR=2.37; 95% CI: 1.31–4.30; p=0.004), and the odds of severe poor mental health (≥15 days) were 2.61 times higher (AOR=2.61; 95% CI: 1.49–4.57; p=0.001). In the fully adjusted models, all equivalent VIF values were <5 (range: 1.01–1.31), indicating no serious multicollinearity among covariates(Supplementary file Table S1).
Table 3.
Unweighted logistic regression sensitivity analysis for the association between maternal smoking during pregnancy (MSDP) and adolescent anxiety and poor mental health among adolescents aged 12–15 years, NHANES 2007–2012 (N=1445)
| Variables | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | p | AOR (95% CI) | p | AOR (95% CI) | p | |
| Higher anxiety (≥7 days) | 1.95 (1.32–2.88) | 0.001 | 1.91 (1.25–2.91) | 0.003 | 1.84 (1.19–2.85) | 0.006 |
| Poor mental health (≥7 days) | 2.41 (1.63–3.56) | <0.001 | 2.13 (1.39–3.26) | <0.001 | 2.01 (1.29–3.12) | 0.002 |
| Severe anxiety (≥15 days) | 2.37 (1.40–4.03) | 0.001 | 2.59 (1.47–4.57) | 0.001 | 2.37 (1.31–4.30) | 0.004 |
| Severe poor mental health (≥15 days) | 3.17 (1.93–5.20) | <0.001 | 2.68 (1.55–4.61) | <0.001 | 2.61 (1.49–4.57) | 0.001 |
This sensitivity analysis was performed using unweighted logistic regression models. Model 1: unadjusted. Model 2: adjusted for adolescent age, sex, race/ethnicity, family PIR, household size, household head’s education level, and adolescent education level. Model 3: adjusted as for Model 2 plus BMI, hypertension, physical activity, health insurance status, routine healthcare access, maternal age at birth, low birth weight, parental marital status, and self-reported poor physical health. The reference group is the ‘No MSDP’ group. A two-sided p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. AOR: adjusted odds ratio. PIR: poverty income ratio. BMI: body mass index.
DISCUSSION
In this study, using cross-sectional data from a nationally representative sample of US adolescents, the adjusted models revealed a significant positive association between MSDP and adolescent anxiety and poor mental health symptoms. A particularly noteworthy finding is that the odds of severe anxiety and severe poor mental health were substantially higher than those observed for the broader outcome definitions. Sensitivity analyses further confirmed the robustness of these associations, as the relationships remained significant even when unweighted data were used. Moreover, as the threshold for anxiety and poor mental health severity was raised, the corresponding effect sizes also increased.
The impact of MSDP on offspring emotional and behavioral problems has attracted significant attention, yet research findings remain controversial. Some studies report no association between MSDP and offspring internalizing behaviors18-21, with sibling studies controlling for shared family factors reaching similar conclusions14,15. These studies argue that the observed association may largely reflect family background confounders – such as young maternal age, low socioeconomic status, and maternal mental illness. Conversely, a large-scale prospective study (UK Biobank, n=502394) confirmed that MSDP was associated with a higher likelihood of anxiety (HR=1.11; 95% CI: 1.07–1.16) and depression (HR=1.19; 95% CI: 1.14–1.23)22. Studies with rigorous designs, including sibling studies controlling for offspring smoking and childhood adversity, have reported dose-dependent associations, with each additional pack/day of smoking during pregnancy associated with nearly twofold higher odds of adult depression (OR=1.93; 95% CI: 1.10–3.37)16,23. Furthermore, a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) study reported significant positive associations with the odds of anxiety (OR=1.03; 95% CI: 1.00–1.05) and severe depression (OR=1.92; 95% CI: 1.29–2.88)24. In conclusion, while family confounders cannot be ignored, evidence from well-controlled sibling and Mendelian randomization studies increasingly supports an independent, potentially dose-dependent effect of MSDP on offspring mental health.
Multiple interrelated biological pathways may collectively contribute to the association between MSDP and offspring mental health problems. First, nicotine readily crosses the placenta and blood-brain barrier, leading to the activation of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) in the fetal brain and disruption of key neurotransmitter systems, including GABA, glutamate, and dopamine signaling25-27. Second, nicotine-induced placental vasoconstriction reduces blood flow and limits oxygen supply to the fetus, resulting in fetal hypoxia, which has been linked to anxiety and an increased likelihood of mental health disorders17,28,29. Moreover, MSDP has been associated with increased oxidative stress and the upregulation of inflammatory markers, both of which have been implicated in the development of mental health problems30,31. Furthermore, MSDP may disrupt the fetal hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis32, a critical system for stress response, and may lead to significant structural changes in offspring brain development, including reduced brain volume and impaired cortical formation, which could provide the underlying basis for the emotional and behavioral issues observed in exposed adolescents33,34. Finally, smoking behavior is genetically correlated with mental disorders such as depression35, and the effects of maternal smoking on offspring mental health may also occur through passive gene-environment correlations36.
Limitations
This study has several limitations. First, MSDP was assessed via retrospective maternal self-report, which is susceptible to recall bias and social desirability bias, likely leading to an underestimation of the true prevalence. Moreover, the absence of quantitative exposure data (e.g. number of cigarettes smoked per day) precluded dose-response analyses. Second, NHANES does not provide a clear definition of ‘poor physical health’, making it difficult to differentiate between somatization symptoms and organic diseases. Third, given the cross-sectional design, causality cannot be inferred from the observed associations. Fourth, participants with missing data were excluded from the analysis; if these data were not missing completely at random, selection bias may have been introduced. Fifth, the relatively small sample size of the MSDP-exposed group (n=183) limited the statistical power for subgroup analyses. Sixth, although the sample is nationally representative after applying sampling weights, generalizability to populations outside the United States remains uncertain. Finally, the absence of key covariate information, including adolescent smoking and alcohol use, parental history of mental illness, and parental smoking status during childhood and adolescence, may have resulted in residual confounding.
CONCLUSIONS
In this cross-sectional study using NHANES 2007–2012 data, MSDP was associated with higher odds of anxiety and poor mental health among US adolescents aged 12–15 years. Causality cannot be inferred given the cross-sectional design. Future studies with prospective, quantitative exposure assessment and more robust designs, such as adoption studies, are needed to confirm these findings.
Supplementary Material
Funding Statement
FUNDING There was no source of funding for this research.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none was reported.
ETHICAL APPROVAL AND INFORMED CONSENT
Ethical approval and informed consent were not required for this study as it is a secondary analysis of existing data.
DATA AVAILABILITY
The dataset used for this study analysis can be found on the official website of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/index.htm).
AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS
YL: writing the manuscript and creating the figures and tables. JD: data collation and statistical analysis. YZ: project design. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
PROVENANCE AND PEER REVIEW
Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
SUPPLEMENTARY FILE DISCLAIMER
The content has been provided by the author(s) and has not been reviewed, verified, or endorsed by European Publishing. It may not have undergone peer review. The views, opinions, and recommendations expressed are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of European Publishing. European Publishing accepts no responsibility or liability for any consequences arising from the use of, or reliance on, this content.
REFERENCES
- 1.GBD 2019 Mental Disorders Collaborators . Global, regional, and national burden of 12 mental disorders in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Psychiatry. 2022;9(2):137-150. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(21)00395-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Tiirikainen K, Haravuori H, Ranta K, Kaltiala-Heino R, Marttunen M. Psychometric properties of the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7) in a large representative sample of Finnish adolescents. Psychiatry Res. 2019;272:30-35. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.12.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Lu W. Adolescent depression: national trends, risk factors, and healthcare disparities. Am J Health Behav. 2019;43(1):181-194. doi: 10.5993/AJHB.43.1.15 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Ormel J, Raven D, van Oort F, et al. Mental health in Dutch adolescents: a TRAILS report on prevalence, severity, age of onset, continuity and co-morbidity of DSM disorders. Psychol Med. 2015;45(2):345-360. doi: 10.1017/S0033291714001469 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Erskine HE, Moffitt TE, Copeland WE, et al. A heavy burden on young minds: the global burden of mental and substance use disorders in children and youth. Psychol Med. 2015;45(7):1551-1563. doi: 10.1017/S0033291714002888 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Liu J, Liu Y, Ma W, Tong Y, Zheng J. Temporal and spatial trend analysis of all-cause depression burden based on Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2019 study. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):12346. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-62381-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Liu J, Xiao Y, Zheng X, et al. The impact of maternal smoking during pregnancy and the age of smoking initiation on incident dementia: a prospective cohort study. Alzheimers Dement. 2024;20(6):4066-4079. doi: 10.1002/alz.13887 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Wu Y, Hao X, Zhu K, et al. Long-term adverse influence of smoking during pregnancy on height and body size of offspring at ten years old in the UK Biobank cohort. SSM Popul Health. 2023;24:101506. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2023.101506 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Yang L, Wang H, Yang L, et al. Maternal cigarette smoking before or during pregnancy increases the risk of birth congenital anomalies: a population-based retrospective cohort study of 12 million mother-infant pairs. BMC Med. 2022;20(1):4. doi: 10.1186/s12916-021-02213-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Lange S, Probst C, Rehm J, Popova S. National, regional, and global prevalence of smoking during pregnancy in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2018;6(7). doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30223-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Corrêa ML, da Silva BGC, Wehrmeister FC, et al. Maternal smoking during pregnancy and children's mental health at age 22 years: results of a birth cohort study. J Affect Disord. 2022;300:203-208. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2021.12.071 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Moylan S, Gustavson K, Øverland S, et al. The impact of maternal smoking during pregnancy on depressive and anxiety behaviors in children: the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study. BMC Med. 2015;13:24. doi: 10.1186/s12916-014-0257-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Bonello K, Gomajee R, Ibanez G, et al. Maternal tobacco smoking during pregnancy and children's emotional and behavioral trajectories: the EDEN Mother-Child Birth Cohort Study. Nicotine Tob Res. 2023;25(6):1174-1183. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntad023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Taylor AE, Carslake D, de Mola CL, et al. Maternal smoking in pregnancy and offspring depression: a cross-cohort and negative control study. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):12579. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-11836-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Meier SM, Plessen KJ, Verhulst F, et al. Familial confounding of the association between maternal smoking during pregnancy and internalizing disorders in offspring. Psychol Med. 2017;47(8):1417-1426. doi: 10.1017/S0033291716003627 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Shenassa ED, Rogers ML, Buka SL. Maternal smoking during pregnancy, offspring smoking, adverse childhood events, and risk of major depression: a sibling design study. Psychol Med. 2023;53(1):206-216. doi: 10.1017/S0033291721001392 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Dantzer JA, Keet CA. Anxiety associated with food allergy in adults and adolescents: an analysis of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2007-2010. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020;8(5):1743-1746. e5. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2019.12.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Sarala M, Mustonen A, Alakokkare AE, Salom C, Miettunen J, Niemelä S. Parental smoking and young adult offspring psychosis, depression and anxiety disorders and substance use disorder. Eur J Public Health. 2022;32(2):254-260. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckac004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Brannigan R, Tanskanen A, Huttunen MO, et al. Maternal smoking during pregnancy and offspring psychiatric disorder: a longitudinal birth cohort study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2022;57(3):595-600. doi: 10.1007/s00127-021-02094-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Schellhas L, Haan E, Easey KE, et al. Maternal and child genetic liability for smoking and caffeine consumption and child mental health: an intergenerational genetic risk score analysis in the ALSPAC cohort. Addiction. 2021;116(11):3153-3166. doi: 10.1111/add.15521 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Dolan CV, Geels L, Vink JM, et al. Testing causal effects of maternal smoking during pregnancy on offspring's externalizing and internalizing behavior. Behav Genet. 2016;46(3):378-388. doi: 10.1007/s10519-015-9766-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Wang R, Shi M, Zhang Q, et al. The association of early life factors with depression and anxiety in adults aged 40-69 years: a population-based cohort study. Transl Psychiatry. 2024;14:299. doi: 10.1038/s41398-024-03006-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Shenassa ED, Gleason JL, Hirabayashi K. Fetal exposure to tobacco metabolites and depression during adulthood: beyond binary measures. Epidemiology. 2024;35(5):602-609. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001757 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Zhang Z, Yu J, Li Q, et al. Unraveling the causal pathways of maternal smoking and breastfeeding in the development of neuropsychiatric disorders: a Mendelian randomization perspective. J Affect Disord. 2025;373:35-43. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2024.12.105 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Proud EK, Rodríguez-Ruiz M, Gummerson DM, et al. Chronic nicotine exposure induces molecular and transcriptomic endophenotypes associated with mood and anxiety disorders in a cerebral organoid neurodevelopmental model. Front Pharmacol. 2024;15:1473213. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1473213 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Moylan S, Jacka FN, Pasco JA, Berk M. How cigarette smoking may increase the risk of anxiety symptoms and anxiety disorders: a critical review of biological pathways. Brain Behav. 2013;3(3):302-326. doi: 10.1002/brb3.137 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Parameshwaran K, Buabeid MA, Karuppagounder SS, et al. Developmental nicotine exposure induced alterations in behavior and glutamate receptor function in hippocampus. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2012;69(5):829-841. doi: 10.1007/s00018-011-0805-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Canessa N, Castronovo V, Cappa SF, et al. Obstructive sleep apnea: brain structural changes and neurocognitive function before and after treatment. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;183(10):1419-1426. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201005-0693OC [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Bardwell WA, Norman D, Ancoli-Israel S, et al. Effects of 2-week nocturnal oxygen supplementation and continuous positive airway pressure treatment on psychological symptoms in patients with obstructive sleep apnea: a randomized placebo-controlled study. Behav Sleep Med. 2007;5(1):21-38. doi: 10.1207/s15402010bsm0501_2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Chan YL, Saad S, Pollock C, et al. Impact of maternal cigarette smoke exposure on brain inflammation and oxidative stress in male mice offspring. Sci Rep. 2016;6:25881. doi: 10.1038/srep25881 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Zhu XF, Hu YQ, Long ZW, Cao MZ. Association between RAR and the prevalence and prognosis of depression: a population-based study. J Affect Disord. 2025;380:1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2025.03.100 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Huizink AC, Mulder EJ. Maternal smoking, drinking or cannabis use during pregnancy and neurobehavioral and cognitive functioning in human offspring. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2006;30(1):24-41. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.04.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Zou R, de Boer O, Felix JF, et al. Association of maternal tobacco use during pregnancy with preadolescent brain morphology among offspring. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(8). doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.24701 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Puga TB, Dai HD, Wang Y, Theye E. Maternal tobacco use during pregnancy and child neurocognitive development. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(2). doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.55952 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Chu X, Ye J, Wen Y, et al. Maternal smoking during pregnancy and risks of depression and anxiety in offspring: an observational study and genome-wide gene-environment interaction analysis in UK Biobank cohort. J Psychiatr Res. 2021;140:149-158. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.05.054 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Langley K, Heron J, Smith GD, Thapar A. Maternal and paternal smoking during pregnancy and risk of ADHD symptoms in offspring: testing for intrauterine effects. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;176(3):261-268. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwr510 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
The dataset used for this study analysis can be found on the official website of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/index.htm).