MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2511868718 · doi:10.1111/jmwh.12491

Prenatal Depression Screening by Certified Nurse‐Midwives, Oregon

2016· article· en· W2511868718 on OpenAlexaff
Kathryn S. Rompala, Nicole Cirino, Kenneth D. Rosenberg, Rochelle Fu, William E. Lambert

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Midwifery & Women s Health · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCertificationReferralFamily medicineEdinburgh Postnatal Depression ScalePrenatal careDepression (economics)DemographicsPregnancyMental healthPrenatal screeningNurse-MidwivesNursingPsychiatryPrenatal diagnosisEnvironmental healthDepressive symptomsAnxietyPopulationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: About 18% of pregnant women have major or minor depression during pregnancy, but many are neither screened nor treated. Lack of treatment can have serious adverse consequences for the woman and her child. Since 2002, the American College of Nurse-Midwives has advised midwives to integrate prevention, universal screening, treatment, and/or referral for depression into the care they provide. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' 2015 guidelines recommend screening at least once in the perinatal period using a standardized, validated tool. A consensus has not been reached by professional organizations about the specifics of whether and when to screen for prenatal depression. The objective of this study is to understand the prenatal screening practices of midwives who practice in Oregon. METHODS: We surveyed all 162 Oregon-licensed certified nurse-midwives (CNMs). The survey asked about practice characteristics, demographics, screening, and perceived barriers to screening. The survey was administered electronically from October through December 2014. RESULTS: The response rate was 37%. Among the 53 CNM respondents who had provided prenatal care in the previous year, 50 (94%) reported screening for prenatal depression, and 38 (72%) reported the use of a standardized screening tool on more than 90% of prenatal patients. Thirty-five (66%) CNMs reported using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. More than 60% of respondents indicated that availability of mental health services and insurance constraints were barriers to screening. DISCUSSION: We explored prenatal depression screening practices of CNMs. Most Oregon CNMs use a standardized screening tool. We suggest 2 strategies to overcome barriers to screening: incorporation of a standardized screening tool into electronic medical records and negotiation with insurance companies. More research is needed to clarify when and how often pregnant women should be screened for depression and how to increase the number of women who receive treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Midwifery & Women s HealthSame topicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumFrench-language works237,207