The Use of Paroxetine and Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy in Postpartum Depression and Anxiety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Approximately 10% to 16% of women experience a major depressive episode after childbirth. A significant proportion of these women also suffer from comorbid anxiety disorders. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the addition of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) to standard antidepressant therapy offers additional benefits in the treatment of post-partum depression with comorbid anxiety disorders. METHOD: Thirty-five women referred to a tertiary care hospital outpatient program with a DSM-IV diagnosis of postpartum depression with comorbid anxiety disorder were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatment groups-paroxetine-only monotherapy group (N = 16) or paroxetine plus 12 sessions of CBT combination therapy group (N = 19)-for a 12-week trial. Progress was monitored by a psychiatrist blinded to treatment group, using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety, Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale, Clinical Global Impressions scale, and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Data were analyzed using 2-tailed statistical tests at an alpha level of.05. The study was conducted from April 1, 2002, to June 30, 2003. RESULTS: Both treatment groups showed a highly significant improvement (p <.01) in mood and anxiety symptoms. Groups did not differ significantly in week of recovery, dose of paroxetine at remission, or measures of depression, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive symptoms at outcome. CONCLUSION: Antidepressant monotherapy and combination therapy with antidepressants and CBT were both efficacious in reducing depression and anxiety symptoms. However, in this sample of acutely depressed/anxious postpartum women, there were no additional benefits from combining the 2 treatment modalities. Further research into the efficacy of combination therapy in the treatment of moderate-to-severe depression with comorbid disorders in postpartum women is recommended.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".