Figures & data
Table I. Study characteristics for age, race/ethnicity, education, marital status, BMI and parity for pregnant group (PG, n = 148) and (CG, n = 36) subjects, as well as p-values for comparisons between the two groups.
Figure 1. Mean HR ( ± SEM) and MAP ( ± SEM) values before, during, and after the TSST in pregnant women (n = 148) and in the CG (n = 36) for both study assessments. To graphically illustrate the findings of the three-level HLM models, percent increase ( ± SEM) from baseline is depicted for HR and MAP for both groups. Significant differences (p < 0.05) are indicated with an asterisk.
![Figure 1. Mean HR ( ± SEM) and MAP ( ± SEM) values before, during, and after the TSST in pregnant women (n = 148) and in the CG (n = 36) for both study assessments. To graphically illustrate the findings of the three-level HLM models, percent increase ( ± SEM) from baseline is depicted for HR and MAP for both groups. Significant differences (p < 0.05) are indicated with an asterisk.](/cms/asset/60187d5c-1772-4717-bb4e-9c3862cac950/ists_a_435128_f0001_b.gif)
Table II. Hierarchical linear model estimates for effects of time and gestational age at test predicting HR (a) and MAP (b) measurements.
Figure 2. Mean distress levels ( ± SEM) before and after the TSST in pregnant women (n = 148) and in the CG (n = 36) for both study assessments. Significant differences (p < 0.05) are indicated with an asterisk.
![Figure 2. Mean distress levels ( ± SEM) before and after the TSST in pregnant women (n = 148) and in the CG (n = 36) for both study assessments. Significant differences (p < 0.05) are indicated with an asterisk.](/cms/asset/80278986-1cd4-4c83-8b04-4fbbbda178b9/ists_a_435128_f0002_b.gif)
Table III. Explained session-by session variance (R2) for changes in HR, MAP, and distress from TSST 1 to 2 for the pregnant group (PG, n = 148) and the (CG, n = 36).
Figure 3. Mean ( ± SEM) salivary cortisol concentrations in response to awakening (CAR) and over the course of the day in pregnant women (n = 148) and in the CG (n = 36) for both study assessments. To graphically illustrate the findings of the three-level HLM models, percent increase ( ± SEM) from awakening is depicted for both groups. Significant differences (p < 0.05) are indicated with an asterisk.
![Figure 3. Mean ( ± SEM) salivary cortisol concentrations in response to awakening (CAR) and over the course of the day in pregnant women (n = 148) and in the CG (n = 36) for both study assessments. To graphically illustrate the findings of the three-level HLM models, percent increase ( ± SEM) from awakening is depicted for both groups. Significant differences (p < 0.05) are indicated with an asterisk.](/cms/asset/0a815454-543b-48ea-b619-ddbaec7781c5/ists_a_435128_f0003_b.gif)
Table IV. Hierarchical linear model estimates for effects of time (CAR and course of the day) and stage of gestation predicting salivary cortisol concentrations.