The effect of perinatal depression treatment for mothers on parenting and child development: A systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antenatal and postpartum depression are very common and have significant consequences for mothers and their children. This review examines which antenatal depression (AD) and postpartum depression (PPD) treatment interventions are most efficacious in improving parenting and/or child development. CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trials, Medline (OVID), Embase (OVID), PsychINFO, PsycARTICLES, AMED, and reference lists were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies assessing the effect of AD, PPD, or both treatment interventions on parenting and/or child development were included. Meta-analysis was conducted using random effects when possible. Thirty-six trials (within 40 articles) met criteria for review. Interventions include interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT), cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), peer support, maternal-child interaction guidance, and other interventions, such as massage. For AD, IPT, CBT, and massage produced large effects on parenting (e.g. adjustment and attention toward infant) and child development (e.g. behaviour). For PPD, maternal-child interaction guidance and psychotherapeutic group support produced large effects on parenting (e.g. sense of competence) and child development (e.g. cortisol). However, meta-analysis revealed nonsignificant effects of IPT on maternal-child attachment and CBT on parenting stress. Promising findings exist for IPT, CBT, maternal-child interaction guidance, massage, and psychotherapeutic group support for specific parenting and/or child development outcomes. Additional RCTs using measures already employed in the literature are required to conduct necessary meta-analysis and fully elucidate treatment effects.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it