A Population-Based Study of Postpartum Mental Health Service Use by Immigrant Women in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Postpartum mental disorders are twice as common among immigrant women compared to nonimmigrant women in developed countries. Immigrant women may experience barriers to access and use of postpartum mental health services, but little is known about their service use on a population level. We described postpartum mental health service use of immigrant mothers living in Ontario, Canada, comparing to a referent group of mothers who were either born in Canada or had lived in Ontario or another Canadian province since 1985. METHOD: Among all women in Ontario, Canada, delivering a live infant from 2008 to 2012 (n = 450,622), we described mental health service use within 1 year postpartum, including mental health physician visits, psychiatric emergency department visits, and psychiatric hospitalization. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) comparing immigrant women to the referent group were adjusted for maternal age, parity, income, rurality, mental health services in prior 2 years, and maternal and newborn health. RESULTS: Immigrant women (n = 123,231; 27%) were less likely to use mental health services than women in the referent group (14.1% vs. 21.4%; aOR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.61), including for physician-based (13.9% vs. 21.1%; aOR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.61) and emergency department (0.6% vs. 1.3%; aOR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.68) services. Hospitalization risk was lower among immigrants (0.20% vs. 0.33%) but became similar after covariate adjustment (aOR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.06). CONCLUSIONS: Underuse of postpartum mental health services may be contributing to the high burden of postpartum mental disorders among immigrant women.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".