MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Postpartum Depression Help‐Seeking Barriers and Maternal Treatment Preferences: A Qualitative Systematic Review

2006· review· en· W2011868122 on OpenAlexaff
Cindy‐Lee Dennis, Leinic Chung‐Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueBirth · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoToronto Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLPsychological interventionPostpartum depressionMedicineFeelingDepression (economics)Qualitative researchMEDLINEInclusion (mineral)Postpartum periodSystematic reviewMental healthPsychiatryPsychologyNursingClinical psychologyPregnancySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite the well-documented risk factors and health consequences of postpartum depression, it often remains undetected and untreated. No study has comprehensively examined postpartum depression help-seeking barriers, and very few studies have specifically examined the acceptability of postpartum depression treatment approaches. The objective of this study was to examine systematically the literature to identify postpartum depression help-seeking barriers and maternal treatment preferences. METHODS: Medline, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases were searched using specific key words, and published peer-reviewed articles from 1966 to 2005 were scanned for inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Of the 40 articles included in this qualitative systematic review, most studies focused on women's experiences of postpartum depression where help seeking emerged as a theme. A common help-seeking barrier was women's inability to disclose their feelings, which was often reinforced by family members and health professionals' reluctance to respond to the mothers' emotional and practical needs. The lack of knowledge about postpartum depression or the acceptance of myths was a significant help-seeking barrier and rendered mothers unable to recognize the symptoms of depression. Significant health service barriers were identified. Women preferred to have "talking therapies" with someone who was nonjudgmental rather than receive pharmacological interventions. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that women did not proactively seek help, and the barriers involved both maternal and health professional factors. Common themes related to specific treatment preferences emerged from women of diverse cultural backgrounds. The clinical implications outlined in this review will assist health professionals in addressing these barriers and in developing preventive and treatment interventions that are in accord with maternal preferences.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.072
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.072
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0110.016
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations909
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBirthSame topicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumFrench-language works237,207