Depression, Anxiety, and Mother-Infant Bonding in Women Seeking Treatment for Postpartum Depression Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The conditions created by the COVID-19 pandemic could negatively affect maternal mental health and the mother-infant relationship. The aim of this study is to determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on depression, anxiety, and mother-infant bonding among women seeking treatment for postpartum depression (PPD). Baseline data collected in two separate randomized controlled trials of a psychoeducational intervention for PPD in the same geographic region, one prior to COVID-19 (March 2019-March 2020) and one during the COVID-19 pandemic (April-October 2020), were compared. Eligible participants had an Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) score of ≥ 10, were ≥ 18 years of age, had an infant < 12 months old, and were fluent in English. Outcomes included PPD (EPDS), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 [GAD-7]), and mother-infant relationship (Postpartum Bonding Questionnaire [PBQ]). All were measured continuously and dichotomized at accepted clinical cutoffs. = 0.30). During COVID-19, women had 65% higher odds of clinically significant levels of depression symptoms (OR = 1.65; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.31) and 46% higher odds of clinically relevant anxiety symptoms (OR = 1.46; 95% CI, 1.05 to 2.05). However, there were no statistically significant differences in mother-infant bonding. The findings of this study suggest that rates and severity of PPD and anxiety symptoms among women seeking treatment for PPD have worsened in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, treatment-seeking mothers have consistently maintained good relationships with their infants. Considering the difficulties women with PPD face when accessing treatment, it is important that strategies are developed and disseminated to safely identify and manage PPD to mitigate potential long-term adverse consequences for mothers and their families. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT03654261 and NCT04485000.
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) | 0.000 | 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".