Group interpersonal psychotherapy for maternal depression an exploratory randomized control trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The global burden of depression is high for women in both high income and low-and-middle income countries WHO. Depression is particularly common during pregnancy and in the postnatal period and phenomenology said to be the same as in non-child bearing age. Despite high prevalence of prenatal and postnatal depression in Pakistan, research on the effectiveness of psychological interventions is limited. Aims This study aimed to assess the feasibility of group interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) intervention for maternal depression in Karachi, Pakistan. Methods A total of 50 mothers aged 18 years and above with children below 3 years of age, and experiencing mild to moderate depression were recruited. Assessments were done using Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale and EuroQol-5D at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale and EQ-5D were also used to measure self-esteem and health related quality of life. Participants were randomly assigned into IPT plus treatment as usual (TAU) and TAU groups. Ten sessions of group IPT were delivered to intervention group. Results Results indicated significant difference between intervention and control group on EPDS. The mean score at baseline for the IPT group (mean = 14.76) reduced to (mean = 6.40) (P < 0.000) at 3-month and to (mean = 6.64) (P < 0.001) at 6-month intervals as compared to TAU (mean = 11.44) (P < 0.000) at 3-month and to (mean = 11.08) at 6-month (P < 0.001) after randomisation. Conclusion IPT is a successful fit for women with maternal depression in low-income areas and IPT can be the appropriate treatment option as it is time limited, specific, and evidence based. Disclosure of interest The authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".