Healthcare utilization before and during the COVID-19 pandemic among mothers and birthing parents with elevated levels of postpartum depression symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about the healthcare utilization of mothers and birthing parents experiencing elevated levels of symptoms of postpartum depression (PPD), particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study examined how healthcare utilization changed in these individuals during COVID-19. Individuals living in Ontario, Canada, with Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale Scores ≥ 10 were recruited into two separate randomized controlled trials of a 1-day intervention for PPD before (pre-COVID-19, n = 441) and during the pandemic (COVID-19, n = 287). Participants in both samples completed the same health resource use questionnaire, self-reporting the number of virtual and/or in-person visits to specific healthcare services over the three months preceding their treatment intervention. Use of medications, mental health care, primary care, hospital-based care, allied health care, and overall healthcare utilization were compared between the pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 groups. While participants had higher levels of PPD symptoms during COVID-19, differences were not seen in the use of specific categories of care (e.g. mental health and primary care). However, before and after statistically adjusting for covariates, overall healthcare utilization decreased from an average of 9.5 visits prior to COVID-19 to 6.9 during COVID-19 (p < .001), a change that was at least partly contributed to by reductions in visits to allied health professionals (e.g. dentists and physiotherapists). Overall healthcare utilization decreased by 27 % in mothers and birthing parents seeking treatment for elevated levels of PPD symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, Canada – despite higher levels of PPD symptoms – highlighting the need to support and address barriers to postpartum care.
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) | 0.000 | 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".