Mothers' and birthing parents' experiences with <scp>1‐day</scp> cognitive behavioural <scp>therapy‐based</scp> workshops for postpartum depression: A descriptive qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT THE SUBJECT?: One in five mothers and birthing parents are affected by postpartum depression (PPD), yet only a small proportion of those with PPD receive treatment. Given cost and accessibility barriers to treatment, brief therapies (e.g. 1 day) could help address PPD on a large scale, though understanding participants' unique experiences with this novel treatment will help guide its refinement and use. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: This paper describes the experiences, perspectives and satisfaction of participants who attended a 1-day workshop for PPD. Participants appreciate being taught practical techniques and the receipt of social support from facilitators and other attendees in the group setting, while some recommended further 'booster sessions' to enhance effectiveness. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: One-day CBT-based workshops may be an effective, low-intensity treatment option that provides helpful skills and builds social networks for individuals with PPD. Additional post-workshop booster sessions may enhance participant satisfaction with this new treatment by providing a reinforcement of their learning and an opportunity to re-connect with other birthing parents. ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Postpartum depression (PPD) affects up to one in five mothers and birthing parents. Understanding their perceptions of therapeutic interventions is key to their effectiveness and scalability. AIM: The aim of the study was to understand participants' experiences attending an in-person or online 1-day cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)-based workshop for PPD and compare their experiences participating in either modality. METHOD: This descriptive qualitative study was embedded in two separate randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of 1-day CBT-based workshops for PPD delivered in-person or online. Responses were provided by 94 in-person and 95 online participants about their experiences. Content analysis was used to code and categorize the data. RESULTS: Participants appreciated learning skills to improve PPD symptoms and joining a community of individuals with shared experiences. Integrating practical coping techniques after the workshop was reported to be most useful, though some wanted additional post-workshop support. Online participants identified additional barriers to workshop engagement. DISCUSSION: Participants who attended either workshop found them to be valuable and effective. Participants valued psychoeducation, social connections and applying practical CBT techniques. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: One-day CBT-based workshops may be an accessible treatment option for individuals with PPD, providing new skills and social support, though some prefer to receive additional post-workshop support.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".