Current Proportion of Women Receiving Perinatal Psychosocial or Psychological Intervention in Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this study, we examined the current status of psychosocial or psychological intervention for women during pregnancy and the postpartum period in Japan. METHODS: We estimated the number of women receiving perinatal psychosocial or psychological intervention in Japan. On December 2015, we requested 2,462 obstetrical facilities that are members of the Japan Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (JAOG) to provide information on women who received psychosocial or psychological intervention during pregnancy, the hospitalization period for childbirth and the puerperal 1 month in 2014. A total of 1,305 (53.0%) of the 2,462 obstetrical facilities responded with valid information on a total of 515,373 women, accounting for approximately 52% of all deliveries that occurred in Japan during the study period. RESULTS: The number of women who received psychosocial or psychological intervention during pregnancy, the hospitalization period for childbirth and the puerperal 1 month were 4,843 (0.94%), 4,791 (0.93%) and 3,015 (0.59%), respectively. In total, 8,743 women (1.70%) received psychosocial or psychological intervention in 2014. CONCLUSION: Considering the response rate, the number of women requiring perinatal psychosocial or psychological intervention was estimated to be 16,000 per year in Japan.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".