MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312112714 · doi:10.1016/j.invent.2022.100597

A pilot randomized controlled trial of a lay telephone coaching and web-based intervention for postpartum depression and anxiety: The MPOWER study

2022· article· en· W4312112714 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternet Interventions · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversitySt Mary's Hospital
FundersRoyal Bank of Canada
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialAnxietyCoachingPostpartum depressionIntervention (counseling)MedicineDepression (economics)ObstetricsPhysical therapyPsychologyPsychiatryPsychotherapistPregnancyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Mental health problems are frequent in the postpartum period, but accessible treatment options are lacking. The MPOWER study investigated whether the use of trained lay coaches could increase the uptake and effectiveness of a web-based intervention (WBI) for women with postpartum depression and/or anxiety. Objectives: First, to compare the feasibility and acceptability of a WBI for women with postpartum depression and anxiety, with and without the addition of telephone coaching calls. Second, to estimate the effectiveness of the WBI at decreasing symptoms of depression and anxiety at 6 months, with and without coaching calls. Methods: We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) that enrolled women who had recently given birth and had mild to moderate postpartum depression and/or anxiety. Study participants were provided access to the WBI. Women randomized to the intervention group also received up to 7 telephone coaching calls during the 6 months of follow up. We evaluated the feasibility of the intervention through participants' usage of the WBI, as well as the completion and fidelity of planned coach calls. We measured acceptability via two questionnaires on the usability of the WBI and participant satisfaction with the intervention. To determine the potential effectiveness of the intervention, the primary outcomes were defined as symptoms of depression and anxiety at 6 months and adjusted mean differences between groups for these outcomes were estimated using linear regression models. Results: We recruited 52 participants (25 intervention; 27 control). At 6 months, 88 % (22/25) of participants randomized to the intervention arm and 59 % (16/27) of participants randomized to the control arm remained in the study. The intervention group had an average of 11 (95 % CI: [5, 18]) more website logins than the control group. Intervention group participants completed a mean of 6.2 coaching calls with high fidelity. The estimates of the effect of the intervention on mental health outcomes at 6-months were imprecise but point estimates and confidence intervals were consistent with a moderate beneficial effect of the intervention on both symptoms of depression and anxiety (fully adjusted effects sizes: 0.51 (95 % CI: [-0.14, 1.17]) and 0.56 (95 % CI: [-0.09, 1.22]), respectively). Conclusions: WBIs with coaching are feasible, acceptable, and potentially effective treatment options for women with mild to moderate postpartum depression and/or anxiety. The addition of coaching calls markedly increased engagement with the WBI, but a larger RCT is needed to determine the effectiveness of such an intervention.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it