Prenatal family support, postnatal family support and postpartum depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inadequate social support is an important determinant of postpartum depression (PPD). Social support for pregnant women consists of supports from various sources and can be measured at different gestation periods. Differentiating the effects of social support from different sources and measured at different gestation periods may have important implications in the prevention of PPD. In the family centred Chinese culture, family support is likely to be one of the most important components in social support. AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the association of prenatal family support and postnatal family support with PPD. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted between February and September 2007 in Hunan, China. Family support was measured with social support rating scale at 30-32 weeks of gestation (prenatal support) and again at 2 weeks of postpartum visit (postnatal support). PPD was defined as Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) score > or =13. RESULTS: A total of 534 pregnant women were included, and among them, 103 (19.3%) scored 13 or more on the EPDS. PPD was 19.4% in the lowest tertile versus 18.4% in the highest quartile (adjusted odds ratio: 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.60, 1.80) for prenatal support from all family members, and PPD was 39.8% in the lowest tertile versus 9.6% in the highest tertile (adjusted odds ratio: 4.4, 95% confidence interval 2.3, 8.4) for postnatal support from all family members. Among family members, support from husband had the largest impact on the risk of developing PPD. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of postnatal family support, especially the support from husband, is an important risk factor of 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 | 0.000 | 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".