Effect of home-based peer support on maternal-infant interactions among women with postpartum depression: A randomized, controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approximately 15% of new mothers experience postpartum depression, representing the most common source of maternal morbidity post-delivery. Postpartum depression may impair maternal-infant interactions, contributing to poor developmental outcomes in the offspring of mothers with depression. The purpose of this study was to test the effectiveness of home-based peer support that included maternal-infant interaction teaching for mothers with symptoms of postpartum depression and their infants. Mothers with postpartum depression were randomly assigned to control (n = 33) or intervention groups (n = 27). Intervention group mothers received 12 weeks of home-based peer support that included maternal-infant interaction teaching; peers were mothers who had recovered from postpartum depression and were trained to provide support. Data were collected from all mothers at baseline, as well as 6 and 12 weeks' post-randomization. Contrary to the hypothesized direction of relationships, results favoured the control group. A significant difference between the groups was observed for one of the two measures of maternal-infant interactions. Several other measures favoured the control group, including mothers' depressive symptoms and social support scores. No significant treatment effects were observed in infant IQ scores or diurnal salivary cortisol levels in mothers or infants. The findings suggest that maternal-infant interaction teaching by peers is not well received by mothers with postpartum depression and might be more optimally delivered by professional nurses.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".