MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906740231 · doi:10.2196/10778

A Group-Based Online Intervention to Prevent Postpartum Depression (Sunnyside): Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial

2018· article· en· W2906740231 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jennifer Duffecy, Rebecca Grekin, Hannah M. Hinkel, Nicholas Gallivan, Graham Nelson, Michael W. O’Hara

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Mental Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Mental HealthUniversity of MichiganWestern Carolina University
KeywordsPsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialMedicineIntervention (counseling)Postpartum depressionCognitive behavioral therapyDepression (economics)Peer supportPsychiatryClinical psychologyPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Postpartum depression (PPD) has a 20% 3-month prevalence rate. The consequences of PPD are significant for the mother, infant, and the family. There is a need for preventive interventions for PPD, which are effective and accessible; however, many barriers exist for women who attempt to access perinatal depression prevention programs. Internet interventions for the treatment and prevention of depression are widely accepted as efficacious and may overcome some of the issues pertaining to access to treatment barriers perinatal women face. However, internet interventions offered without any human support tend to have low adherence but positive outcomes for those who do complete treatment. Internet support groups often have high levels of adherence but minimal data supporting efficacy as a treatment for depression. Taken together, these findings suggest that combining the treatment components of individual interventions with the support provided by an internet support group might create an intervention with the scalability and cost-effectiveness of an individual intervention and the better outcomes typically found in supported interventions. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to describe the development of a cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) internet intervention with peer support to prevent PPD and examine preliminary depression and site usage outcomes. METHODS: User-centered design groups were used to develop the internet intervention. Once the intervention was developed, women who were 20 to 28 weeks pregnant with symptoms of depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-8 scores of 5-14) but who had no major depression diagnosis were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to compare 8 weeks of a CBT-based internet intervention with peer support to an individual internet intervention designed to prevent PPD. Assessments took place at baseline, 4 weeks, 8 weeks (end of treatment), and then 4 weeks and 6 weeks postpartum. RESULTS: A total of 25 women were randomized. Of these, 24 women completed the RCT. Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores at 6 weeks postpartum remained below the clinical threshold for referral for treatment in both groups, with depression measures showing a decrease in symptoms from baseline to postpartum. At 6 weeks postpartum, only 4% (1/24) met the criteria for PPD. There was no difference between groups in adherence to the intervention, with an average of 14.55 log-ins over the course of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest women were responsive to both peer support and individual internet interventions to prevent PPD and that peer support may be a useful feature to keep participants adherent. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02121015; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02121015 (archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/765a7qBKy).

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized trialhigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized trialhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.362 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations69
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Mental HealthSame topicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumFrench-language works237,207