MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137781327 · doi:10.2196/resprot.2329

Web-based Intervention for Postpartum Depression: Formative Research and Design of the MomMoodBooster Program

2012· article· en· W2137781327 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brian G. Danaher, Jeannette Milgrom, John R. Seeley, Scott Stuart, Charlene Schembri, Milagra S Tyler, Jennifer Ericksen, Whitney S. Lester, Alan W. Gemmill, Peter M. Lewinsohn

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsFocus groupPsychologyPsychological interventionFormative assessmentMental healthClinical psychologyUsabilityIntervention (counseling)PsychotherapistPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Postpartum depression is a significant public health problem affecting approximately 13% of women. There is strong evidence supporting Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) for successful psychosocial treatment. This treatment model combines cognitive and behavioral strategies to address pessimism, attributions for failure, low self-esteem, low engagement in pleasant activities, social withdrawal, anxiety, and low social support. Encouraging results have been reported for using Web-based CBT interventions for mental health domains, including the treatment of panic disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and complicated grief and depression. To date, however, Web-based interventions have not been used and evaluated specifically for the treatment of postpartum depression. OBJECTIVE: We describe the formative work that contributed to the development of our Web-based intervention for helping to ameliorate symptoms of postpartum depression, and the design and key components of the program. METHODS: A total of 17 focus group participants and 22 usability testers, who shared key characteristics with the participants of our planned feasibility study, took part. The proposed structure and ingredients of the program and mock-ups of selected webpages were presented to focus group participants. At various points, participants were asked a series of thought questions designed to elicit opinions and set the occasion for group discussion. At the end of the session, participants were asked to describe their overall reaction to the proposed features of the program emphasizing candid opinions about what they did not like and features they thought were missing and should be added. Usability testers were asked to interact with a series of seven different Web-based interactions planned for the program while receiving minimal direction. Each tester was asked to describe her thoughts using a think-aloud technique. They were then asked to consider all that they had learned about the program and complete the System Usability Scale that we adapted slightly to be appropriate for evaluating the proposed website. Transcripts from the focus groups and usability tests were reviewed by research team members for overarching themes with particular emphasis on suggested changes. A list emerged, and iterative and incremental adjustments were made as a result. RESULTS: The qualitative and quantitative data gathered in the focus groups and usability sessions reported here suggest that the new mothers involved had largely positive reactions to the major features of the program and that those program features performed well in terms of usability. CONCLUSIONS: An overview of the eventual design, architecture, and key program ingredients of the MomMoodBooster program is provided including innovative features supplementing 6 core CBT sessions, which include a partner's website, a library, and individual feedback by a personal coach.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.426
GPT teacher head0.634
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations76
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207