The process of developing and implementing a telephone-based peer support program for postpartum depression: evidence from two randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A randomized controlled trial evaluated the effect of telephone-based peer support on preventing postpartum depression (PPD) among high-risk mothers. The results indicated that support provided by peer volunteers may be an effective preventative strategy. The purpose of this paper is to outline the process of developing, implementing, maintaining, and evaluating the peer support program that we used in this PPD prevention trial. METHODS: The peer support program had been used successfully in a pilot trial and a previous breastfeeding peer support trial. Based on our experience and lessons learned, we developed a 4-phase, 12-step approach so that the peer support model could be copied and used by different health providers in various settings. We will use the PPD prevention trial to demonstrate the suggested steps. RESULTS: The trial aim to prevent the onset of PPD was established. Peer volunteers who previously experienced and recovered from self-reported PPD were recruited and attended a four-hour training session. Volunteers were screened and those identified as appropriate to provide support to postpartum mothers were selected. Women who scored more than 9 on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale within the first two weeks after childbirth were recruited to participate in the trial and proactive, individualized, telephone-based peer support (mother-to-mother) was provided to those randomized to the intervention group. Peer volunteers maintained the intervention, supported other volunteers, and evaluated the telephone-based support program. Possible negative effects of the intervention were assessed. An in-depth assessment of maternal perspectives of the program at 12 weeks postpartum was performed. CONCLUSIONS: The 4-phase, 12-step approach delineated in this paper provides clear and concise guidelines for health professionals to follow in creating and implementing community-based, peer-support interventions with the potential to prevent PPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN68337727.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.059 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".