Approaches to health-care provider education and professional development in perinatal depression: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Perinatal depression is the most common mental illness experienced by pregnant and postpartum women, yet it is often under-detected and under-treated. Some researchers suggest this may be partly influenced by a lack of education and professional development on perinatal depression among health-care providers, which can negatively affect care and contribute to stigmatization of women experiencing altered mood. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to provide a synthesis of educational and professional development needs and strategies for health-care providers in perinatal depression. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was conducted in seven academic health databases using selected keywords. The search was limited to primary studies and reviews published in English between January 2006 and May/June 2015, with a focus on perinatal depression education and professional development for health-care providers. Studies were screened for inclusion by two reviewers and tie-broken by a third. Studies that met inclusion criteria were quality appraised and data extracted. Results from the studies are reported through narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Two thousand one hundred five studies were returned from the search, with 1790 remaining after duplicate removal. Ultimately, 12 studies of moderate and weak quality met inclusion criteria. The studies encompassed quantitative (n = 11) and qualitative (n = 1) designs, none of which were reviews, and addressed educational needs identified by health-care providers (n = 5) and strategies for professional development in perinatal mental health (n = 7). Consistently, providers identified a lack of formal education in perinatal mental health and the need for further professional development. Although the professional development interventions were diverse, the majority focused on promoting identification of perinatal depression and demonstrated modest effectiveness in improving various outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review reveals a lack of strong research in multi-disciplinary, sector, site, and modal approaches to education and professional development for providers to identify and care for women at risk for, or experiencing, depression. To ensure optimal health outcomes, further research comparing diverse educational and professional development approaches is needed to identify the most effective strategies and consistently meet the needs of health-care providers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: A protocol for this systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (Protocol number: CRD42015023701 ), June 21, 2015.
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 | 0.021 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".