Women with postpartum depression: "my husband" stories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The research on Postpartum Depression (PPD) to date suggests that there is a knowledge gap regarding women's perception of their partners' role as carer and care activities they perform. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to describe women's understanding of their partners' or husbands' involvement in the midst of PPD. METHODS: This study used interview data from a larger study of northern and rural Ontario women's stories of help-seeking for PPD. The interpretive description approach was used to illustrate the complexity of women's spousal connections in PPD. Data from a purposive community sample of 27 women who self-identified as having been diagnosed with PPD was used. From the verbatim transcribed interviews a number of data excerpts were identified and labeled as "my husband" stories. Narrative analysis was employed to examine these stories. RESULTS: During this time of vulnerability, the husbands' physical, emotional and cognitive availability positively contributed to the women's functioning and self-appraisals as wife and mother. Their representations of their husbands' 'doing for' and/or 'being with' promoted their well-being and ultimately protected the family. CONCLUSION: Given that husbands are perceived to be central in mitigating women's suffering with PPD, the consistent implementation of a triad orientation, that includes woman, child and partner rather than a more traditional and convenient dyadic orientation, is warranted in comprehensive postpartum care. Finally, this study contributes a theoretical understanding of responsive as well as reactive connections between women and family members during the postpartum period.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".