Non-pharmacological interventions to reduce the symptoms of mild to moderate anxiety in pregnant women. A systematic review and narrative synthesis of women’s views on the acceptability of and satisfaction with interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess women's views on the acceptability of and satisfaction with non-pharmacological interventions to reduce the symptoms of anxiety in pregnant women. A systematic review and narrative synthesis (Prospero protocol number CRD42015017841). Fourteen included studies were conducted in Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, UK and USA. Interventions were cognitive behavioural therapy, mindfulness, yoga, psychological assessment, supportive and educational based interventions. Studies included women from general antenatal populations and women with anxiety or depression symptoms or risk factors for anxiety or depression. The findings were limited due to the small number of studies evaluating different types of interventions using various study methods. Some studies had too little procedural reporting to allow a full quality assessment. Women's views on the acceptability of and satisfaction with interventions were overwhelmingly positive. The review highlights women's motivations for and barriers to participation as well as the benefit women perceived from peer support and individual discussions of their situation. Interventions need to be further evaluated in randomised controlled trials. The inclusion of women's views and experiences illuminates how and why intervention components contribute to outcomes. Women's initial concerns about psychological screening and the benefit derived from peer support and individual discussion should be noted by providers of maternity care.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".