In principle, the article is not a research, it is a “hypothesis” about the effect that the mother's own anxiogenic situation during pregnancy and in the parents after birth may have on the future of the child in adolescence. It does not present data from a specific research, but an argumentation towards that hypothesis, supported by other authors or research.  

We can agree, and it is widely accepted, that neurodevelopment from embryo and environmental changes can modify the expression of one's genes. The study of neurodevelopment and phenotype is an established field. Also, the fact that the incidence of anxiety and stress among today's adolescents seems to be increasing seems proven, but what accounts for that increase is where the difficulty lies.  

This article insists that those first two years of development are pivotal to the expression of anxiety in later adolescence. To my knowledge, there are no experiments that have compared stressed and non-stressed childbearing and its effect ten to fifteen years later. There are studies that show the “imitation” of anxiety patterns from mothers (culturally, mostly) to daughters. Boys and girls learn what they see, so other more direct learning mechanisms, and not necessarily neurological alterations, could be hypothesized to explain this later increase in anxiety.  

On the other hand, this anxiety in adolescents and young people is also more explainable due to the social and cultural conditions of the moment. Today's adolescents are under much more pressure in all aspects of their lives: starting with the use of cell phones and tablets from the age of one (a continuous stimulation that leads to hyperactivity), imitation and comparison in social networks (which leads to image and self-esteem problems), increasing educational demands (with great anxiety about being judged), excessive overprotection (developing fear of failure) and a long etcetera of factors present in the 21st century that were not present at the end of the century and even less so in the 1950s.   

In short, the article is interesting. It is a theoretical hypothesis, perhaps in one part it could be right, but there would be other more direct and immediate factors that could explain this high anxiety in adolescents. From my point of view, if the factors that produce stress are right under our noses, why should we look for them in childhood, even if that is where they start. And the paragraph where he hypothesizes that anxious adolescents look for leaders and a sense of political security, already takes a total theoretical leap.

The article argues that anxiety in children and adolescents may have deep roots in very early stages of development, even as early as pregnancy. From a developmental and evolutionary perspective, the authors explain that environmental stimuli -such as maternal stress, caregiver-child interactions and the use of technology- can induce adaptive responses in the infant brain that, if they do not correspond to future environments, can become maladaptive. This phenomenon is referred to as “adaptive maladjustment”.  

As all studies show, anxiety disorders in young people have increased in developed countries and in the authors' view cannot be attributed solely to recent events such as the pandemic. Rather, the authors link this increase to social, technological and cultural changes that have created environments for which human development is not fully prepared. Their interpretation leads them to propose that addressing this problem requires preventive actions focused on early childhood and an integrated approach to health, education and social welfare policies.  

This article represents a valuable contribution to the contemporary approach to child development by articulating developmental biology, neuroscience and social analysis. By shifting the explanation of anxiety disorders from immediate factors to early developmental trajectories, it underscores the need to understand juvenile anxiety not only as an individual pathology, but as a symptom of a desynchronization between brain development and cultural environment.  

The concept of “adaptive maladjustment” is particularly powerful, as it allows us to think of anxiety as a logical response to an environment that the organism interpreted as dangerous from very early stages. Society's responsibility, therefore, is twofold: first, to create safe and emotionally rich prenatal and postnatal environments, and second, to reduce the gap between what the environment communicates to the child and what he or she will actually experience in later life.    

From a public policy perspective, the article challenges the educational, health and social protection systems to rethink their role in the promotion of mental health from early childhood. This implies strengthening the training of professionals, ensuring quality care in childhood and reducing the social inequalities that amplify risks. Their approach proposes that solutions should adopt a life course perspective, with more integrated policies to support parents, caregivers and early childhood.  

The quality of the emotional environment in which young children develop, including active adult-child interactions inside and outside the home, is essential. Education policies alone cannot meet this challenge, as they have little focus on the preschool stage. Health and social policies will need to address the increasing prevalence of stress and mental health problems in women before and during pregnancy, and also in their partners, if these problems are to be avoided in future generations. The cost to society of not rethinking this approach to emotional development in childhood may be enormous. In short, the article provides a solid basis for redirecting preventive efforts toward a key stage of human development and for understanding anxiety disorders not only clinically, but also structurally, culturally, and evolutionarily.  

The hypothesis they propose has a high level of interest and is supported by the previous studies they cite. However, the authors do not provide empirical evidence for their formulation. Nevertheless, they very sensibly emphasize the prevention of maternal stress, quality early childhood interactions between caregiver and child (socioemotional support and stimulation) and the appropriate use of technology as preventive bases, which can effectively moderate infant-juvenile anxiety.

The authors suggest that there is currently an increase in anxiety disorders among adolescents, which may be due to poor development of executive and regulatory functions in childhood. This development is thought to be influenced by early environmental conditions such as maternal stress, quality of care, and more complex technological and social environments. The authors call for a comprehensive view of the life cycle, which involves a more cohesive reflection on parental and caregiver support, as well as on early childhood by policymakers in the health, education, and social welfare sectors.

We know that the early years of life are crucial for people's emotional development and that when secure attachment bonds cannot be established and there are failures in childcare, difficulties in relationships and psychological suffering are more likely to arise in later years. The best prevention of mental health problems (not just anxiety disorders) is to establish social policies that guarantee children's well-being by protecting them from violence, abuse and neglect. This means living in social environments characterised by equality, with the necessary socio-economic and community resources, decent housing, access to inclusive schooling and mothers and fathers with enough time to care for and accompany their children.