Multiple mediation analysis of the peer-delivered Thinking Healthy Programme for perinatal depression: findings from two parallel, randomised controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low-intensity psychosocial interventions have been effective in targeting perinatal depression, but relevant mechanisms of change remain unknown. AIMS: To examine three theoretically informed mediators of the Thinking Healthy Programme Peer-delivered (THPP), an evidence-based psychosocial intervention for perinatal depression, on symptom severity in two parallel, randomised controlled trials in Goa, India and Rawalpindi, Pakistan. METHOD: Participants included pregnant women aged ≥18 years with moderate to severe depression, as defined by a Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) score ≥10, and were randomised to either THPP or enhanced usual care. We examine whether three prespecified variables (patient activation, social support and mother-child attachment) at 3 months post-childbirth mediated the effects of THPP interventions of perinatal depressive symptom severity (PHQ-9) at the primary end-point of 6 months post-childbirth. We first examined individual mediation within each trial (n = 280 in India and n = 570 in Pakistan), followed by a pooled analysis across both trials (N = 850). RESULTS: In both site-specific and pooled analyses, patient activation and support at 3 months independently mediated the intervention effects on depressive symptom severity at 6 months, accounting for 23.6 and 18.2% of the total effect of THPP, respectively. The intervention had no effect on mother-child attachment scores, thus there was no evidence that this factor mediated the intervention effect. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of the psychosocial intervention on depression outcomes in mothers were mediated by the same two factors in both contexts, suggesting that such interventions seeking to alleviate perinatal depression should target both social support and patient activation levels. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: None.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".