Identifying the support needs of fathers affected by post-partum depression: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accessible summary • The purpose of this pilot study was to describe the experiences, support needs, resources, and barriers to support for fathers whose partners had experienced post-partum depression (PPD). • Telephone interviews were conducted with a total of 11 fathers. We interviewed seven fathers from New Brunswick and four fathers from Alberta. • The fathers we spoke with experienced a number of depressive symptoms including: anxiety, lack of time and energy, irritability, feeling sad or down, changes in appetite, and thoughts of harm to self or baby. The most common barriers to accessing support included not knowing where to look for PPD resources and difficulty reaching out to others. • This study demonstrated the feasibility of a larger-scale exploration of fathers' experiences in supporting their spouses affected by PPD. Abstract The purpose of this pilot study was to describe the experiences, support needs, resources, and barriers to support for fathers whose partners had post-partum depression (PPD) in preparation for a larger study. Qualitative methods and community-based research approaches were used in this exploratory/descriptive multi-site study, conducted in New Brunswick and Alberta. Telephone interviews were conducted with a total of 11 fathers in New Brunswick (n= 7) and Alberta (n= 4). Fathers experienced a number of depressive symptoms including: anxiety, lack of time and energy, irritability, feeling sad or down, changes in appetite, and thoughts of harm to self or baby. The most common barriers for fathers were lack of information regarding PPD resources and difficulty seeking support. This pilot study establishes the feasibility of the larger-scale exploration of fathers' experiences in supporting their spouses affected by 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".