Evaluation of the Acceptability of a Prenatal Program for Women With Histories of Childhood Trauma: The Program STEP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Childhood trauma would negatively affect pregnant women's mental health and would have intergenerational repercussions. However, there is a paucity of prenatal interventions specifically designed for women exposed to childhood trauma. The study aims to evaluate the acceptability of STEP, a manualized group intervention designed for pregnant women having experienced early life adversity. Methods: The acceptability of STEP was assessed in four phases. In Phase 1, six experts evaluated whether the program activities were pertinent and trauma sensitive. In Phase 2, three parents read the intervention manuals and evaluated whether they considered each session relevant, interesting, and clear. In Phase 3, the program was briefly presented by phone to 309 pregnant women from the community. Women were inquired about their interest in the program, and the reasons for their lack of interest were assessed. In Phase 4, 30 pregnant women exposed to childhood trauma participated in the program and completed anonymous satisfaction questionnaires after each session. Psychological distress was also measured before and after the program. Results: All activities were rated by independent experts as highly pertinent, adequate, and sufficiently safe to be offered to pregnant women. Parents who read through the intervention manuals also considered that the sessions were relevant, clear, and interesting. About half of the pregnant women from the community showed interest in the program. Participants reported very high levels of satisfaction and a significant decrease in psychological distress during the program. Conclusions: Our findings show a high level of convergence among various indicators of program acceptability.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".