Examining the gaps in perinatal mental health care: A qualitative study of the perceptions of perinatal service providers in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, access to perinatal mental health services is disparate across districts, regions, provinces, and territories. Questions remain as to how gaps in service are being experienced by Canadian service providers and clinicians. This paper examines three key questions: 1) What are the experiences of care providers with respect to the screening, identifying, and managing perinatal mental health disorders? 2) What gaps in perinatal mental health care have been identified? and 3) What approaches have been taken by providers, communities, and regions in addressing the needs of their populations? To address these questions, 435 participants from across Canada were surveyed using an online survey constructed by the research members of the CPMHC. A qualitative analysis of the data revealed three key themes: groups marginalized by the current perinatal mental health system, gaps and supports identified by communities; and systemic and policy issues. From these three themes we have identified the key components of changes required in the national approach to perinatal mental health disorders. We identify key resources that could be utilized to create policy change and provide recommendations for change.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".