The use of personal protective equipment as an independent factor for developing depressive and post-traumatic stress symptoms in the postpartum period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: New recommendations regarding the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) during delivery have changed the maternal birth experience. In this study, we investigated the mental perceived impact of PPE use during delivery on the development of maternal postpartum depression (PPD) and post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS). METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective cohort study concerning women who delivered during the COVID-19 pandemic first lockdown period in Israel. Postpartum women were approached and asked to complete a comprehensive online questionnaire. Impact of PPE was graded on a scale of 1-5, and Impact of PPE ≥4 was considered high. PPD and PTSS were assessed using the EPDS and City BiTS questionnaires. RESULTS: Of 421 parturients, 36 (9%) reported high Impact of PPE. Parturients with high Impact of PPE had significantly higher PPD and PTSS scores)EPDS 8.4 ± 5.8 vs. 5.7 ± 5.3; City BiTS 9.2 ± 10.3 vs. 5.8 ± 7.8, p < 0.05 for both). Following adjustment for socio-demographic and delivery confounders and fear of COVID-19 (using Fear of COVID19 scale), Impact of PPE remained positively correlated with PPD symptoms (ß = 0.103, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.029-1.006, p = 0.038). CONCLUSION: When examining the risk factors for developing postpartum PTSS-experiences during labor and PPE were found to be significant variables. As the use of PPE is crucial in this era of COVID-19 pandemic in order to protect both parturients and caregivers, creative measures should be taken in order to overcome the communication gap it poses.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".