Abortion 'does not increase risk of mental health problems... but having a baby does'

Having an abortion does not increase the risk of mental health problems, but having a baby does, one of the largest studies to compare the aftermath of both decisions suggests.

The research by Danish scientists further debunks the notion that terminating a pregnancy can trigger mental illness - but does show postnatal depression to be much more of a factor.

The Danish study included 365,550 teenagers and women who had an abortion or first-time delivery between 1995 and 2007.

Seven per 1,000 women got mental health help within a year of giving birth compared with four per 1,000 women pre-delivery. But for those who had an abortion, the rate seeking help before and after the termination was the same

None had a history of psychiatric problems that required hospitalisation. Through various national registries, researchers were able to track mental health counselling at hospitals or outpatient facilities before and after an abortion or delivery.

The Danish study included 365,550 teenagers and women who had an abortion or first-time delivery between 1995 and 2007. None had a history of psychiatric problems that required hospitalisation. Through various national registries, researchers were able to track mental health counselling at a hospital or outpatient facility before and after an abortion or delivery.

During the study period, 84,620 had an abortion while 280,930 gave birth.

Researchers compared the rate of mental health treatment among women before and after a first abortion. Within the first year after an abortion, 15 per 1,000 women needed psychiatric counselling - similar to the rate seeking help nine months before an abortion.

Changes in hormone levels, sleep deprivation and other demands associated with having a baby could trigger mental problems, experts say

Researchers say women who seek abortions come from a demographic group more likely to have emotional problems to begin with. Statistics show that a large percentage struggle economically and they have above-average rates of unintended pregnancies.

While first-time mothers had a lower rate of mental problems overall, the proportion of those seeking help after giving birth was dramatically higher. About seven per 1,000 women got mental health help within a year of giving birth compared with four per 1,000 women pre-delivery.

The most common problems among women in both the abortion and the delivery groups were debilitating anxiety, severe stress and depression.

'A woman should know that her risk of having a psychiatric episode is not increased after an abortion,' said Trine Munk-Olsen of Aarhus University, who led the study.

The study did not examine why a pregnancy was terminated. Researchers also only studied mental problems serious enough to warrant admission to a hospital or outpatient clinic and did not look into the role of mild depression and other lesser symptoms.

In a previous study, published in 2006, Munk-Olsen found new mothers faced increased risks for a host of mental problems, not just postnatal depression.

Changes in hormone levels, sleep deprivation and other demands associated with having a baby could trigger mental problems, experts say. By contrast, women who have an abortion don’t experience similar changes.

'Anyone who’s ever had a baby knows it’s stressful. That stress doesn’t go away in a week or two after delivery,' said Dr. Robert Blum, who heads the department of population, family and reproductive health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

The latest findings echo an extensive review by the American Psychological Association in 2008 that found no evidence that ending an unwanted pregnancy threatens women’s mental health.

A separate review by Blum and his colleagues found that the most rigorous research on the topic did not find a relationship between abortion and long-term mental health problems. Previous studies that suggested such a connection were often poorly designed, had dropout rates or did not control for factors that could affect the conclusion.

The eternal chronometer: How our body clock has remained unchanged for millions of years

Scientists have identified the universal ancient body clock that regulates the behaviour of all forms of life.

The internal chronometer tells the body what should be happening at different times during the 24-hour cycle and when it should take place.

The researchers found that the version today is unchanged from the earliest forms of life on Earth like algae and dates back millions of years.

Precise time-keeping: Scientists found that our body clock remains unchanged from the earliest forms of life on Earth like algae and dates back millions of years

Its discovery could shed light on a range of human conditions such as depression, cancer and diabetes and provide relief to workers such as pilots or nurses who do odd hours.

Studies have long shown that working irregular shifts increases the risk of catching a range of conditions and puts employees at greater risk of mental illness.

The studies from the University of Cambridge and the University of Edinburgh examined the circadian clock which controls patterns of seasonal activity in everything from sleep cycles to butterfly migration.

In the first study, Cambridge scientists found that red blood cells have a 24-hour rhythm.

This is an important step because circadian rhythms have always been assumed to be linked to DNA and gene activity, but unlike most other cells in the body red blood cells do not have DNA.

The discovery of a universal body clock could shed light on a range of human conditions such as depression, cancer and diabetes

The second study found a similar 24-hour cycle in marine algae suggesting that internal body clocks have always been important, even for ancient forms of life.

Scientists had previously thought the circadian clock was driven by gene activity, but both the algae and the red blood cells kept time without it, meaning other factors were at play.

Dr Akhilesh Reddy, a neuroscientist with Cambridge University who led the first study, said: ‘The implications of this for health are manifold.

'We already know that disrupted clocks - for example, caused by shift-work and jet-lag - are associated with metabolic disorders such as diabetes, mental health problems and even cancer.

‘By furthering our knowledge of how the 24-hour clock in cells works, we hope that the links to these disorders - and others - will be made clearer.

‘This will, in the longer term, lead to new therapies that we couldn't even have thought about a couple of years ago.’

Professor Andrew Millar of the University of Edinburgh's School of Biological Sciences, who led the second study, added: ‘This ground-breaking research shows that body clocks are ancient mechanisms that have stayed with us through a billion years of evolution.

‘They must be far more important and sophisticated than we previously realised.

‘More work is needed to determine how and why these clocks developed in people - and most likely all other living things on earth - and what role they play in controlling our bodies.’

The 'auto-cutie' effect: Men are so distracted by attractive newsreaders they can't remember the headlines

It won't come as much of a surprise to women, but men are distracted by attractive newsreaders.

In fact, the more attractive a female newsreader is, the less likely male viewers are to remember what she had been saying, according to a new study.

The research follows heavy criticism in recent years that many television newsreaders are simply overpaid 'auto-cuties' lacking in journalistic experience.

BBC newsreader Emma Crosby: The more attractive a female anchor is, the less likely male viewers are to remember what she had been saying, a study claims

The strategy of hiring attractive women to read the headlines boosts ratings figures, it is claimed.

But the flip side of this is many male viewers won't remember the news they have just been informed about.

Writing in the journal Communication Research, Indiana University students Maria Elizabeth Grabe and Lelia Samson staged two versions of their own news broadcast.

Both versions featured the same 24-year-old female newsreader. In the first, she wore a tight-fitting dark blue jacket, a skirt that 'accentuated her waist-to-hip ratio', bright red lipstick and a necklace.

In the second, the dressed in a shapeless and loose-fitting dark blue jacket and skirt, wore no lipstick or a necklace.

In both segments, she read local news and was filmed in a 'medium-long shot' revealing the top half of her body including her upper thighs.

Oh la la! It's doubtful many Frenchmen remember the headlines after watching Melissa Theuriau

Four hundred volunteers were then randomly asked to watch one of the versions and then filled out questionnaires revealing what they thought about the presenter.

Included were four multiple-choice questions about her appearance and ten about the news she had been reading.

Women remembered more about what the 'sexy' newsreader had been saying, than her less made-up counterpart.

Men, on the other hand, recalled 'significantly more information watching the unsexualised anchor deliver news than her sexualised version'.

The researchers concluded that we find it easier to process information visually, and that men's brains are overwhelmed when presented with sexual imagery, although they didn't study how women would react when confronted with an attractive male newsreader.

Last year, newsreader Katie Derham fiercely defended the role of newsreaders following criticism that they were 'auto-cuties'.

She said: 'With rolling news coverage nowadays you have to be on air constantly -and it is the overpaid airheads in the nice suits who have to hold everything together.

'We do have to think on our feet and we do have to have journalistic training, and professionalism, and common sense - because otherwise the product would be c*** and we would be taken off-air.'