Unacceptability of routine screening for postnatal depression was related to the screening process, the intrusiveness of questions, and the stigma of disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shakespeare J, Blake F, Garcia J. A qualitative study of the acceptability of routine screening of postnatal women using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Br J Gen Pract 2003;53:614–9.[OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Q How do women experience routine screening by health visitors (HVs) using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS)? Indepth interviews. 22 general practices in Oxford, UK. 39 women (mean age 34 y) were selected based on their registered general practice, EPDS scores at 8 weeks and 8 months, and whether listening visits were recorded (a proxy measure for postnatal depression). Exclusion criteria were inadequate English, age <16 years, learning disability, or infant death. Women were interviewed at 11–19 months after delivery and asked about how they felt in the first 3 months after the birth and about completing the EPDS. Screening was judged “acceptable” if women gave positive or neutral responses to questions about the EPDS. Interviews were tape recorded, transcribed verbatim, and … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBritish%2BJournal%2Bof%2BGeneral%2BPractise%26rft.stitle%253Dbjgp%26rft.aulast%253DShakespeare%26rft.auinit1%253DJ.%26rft.volume%253D53%26rft.issue%253D493%26rft.spage%253D614%26rft.epage%253D619%26rft.atitle%253DA%2Bqualitative%2Bstudy%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bacceptability%2Bof%2Broutine%2Bscreening%2Bof%2Bpostnatal%2Bwomen%2Busing%2Bthe%2BEdinburgh%2BPostnatal%2BDepression%2BScale.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F14601337%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bjgp&resid=53/493/614&atom=%2Febnurs%2F7%2F2%2F61.atom
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 | 0.031 | 0.159 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".