Traditional Postpartum Practices and Rituals: Clinical Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In many cultures, postpartum rituals are observed because they are believed to have beneficial mental health effects. Our systematic review examines the research literature investigating the effects of postpartum rituals on postpartum depression (PPD) to determine if the rituals protect against PPD. METHODS: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched (from 1966 to October 31, 2008). Reference lists of relevant articles and links to related articles were also examined. Both qualitative and quantitative studies that focused on traditional practices and rituals in the postpartum period (that is, within the first year following childbirth) and their relation to PPD or mood were included. RESULTS: Seventy-two studies were considered, with 12 meeting the inclusion criteria. The data were summarized according to the type of ritual including: organized support, diet, and other or multiple postpartum practices, and evidence for or against a protective effect on PPD. Although limited, not all studies suggested that the rituals prevent PPD. Overall, there is some evidence that postpartum rituals dictating appropriate and wanted social support may be of some protective value, depending on numerous contextual factors. CONCLUSIONS: This area needs more culturally sensitive and systematic research. Current studies suggest that the key protective element may be the presence of welcome support rather than the specific ritual.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".