The Impact of Partner Support in the Treatment of Postpartum Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of partner support in the treatment of mothers suffering from postpartum depression (PPD). METHOD: Patients underwent a comprehensive psychiatric assessment and were enrolled in the study only if they met the DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder with postpartum onset. Patients with PPD (n = 29) were assigned randomly to 2 treatment groups: group 1 (control group) consisted of patients only (n = 13), while group 2 (support group) consisted of patients (n = 16) and their partners. The patients in both groups were seen for 7 psychoeducational visits each. In group 2, partners participated in 4 of the 7 visits. Patients in both groups were administered a set of questionnaires that included the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), the Kellner Symptom Questionnaire, the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS), and the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI). In addition, during visits 1 and 7, all patients underwent assessment using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Instrument (MINI), section A (major depressive episode). The partners in both groups completed the DAS and the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ). RESULTS: Relative to the control-group patients, the support-group patients displayed a significant decrease in depressive symptoms and other psychiatric conditions. Relative to the support group, the general health of the partners in the control group deteriorated. CONCLUSION: Partner support has a measurable effect on women experiencing PPD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".