MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409905846 · doi:10.1186/s12888-025-06876-3

Electronic Measurement-based care (eMBC) for perinatal depression and anxiety: a pilot randomized controlled trial

2025· article· en· W4409905846 on OpenAlexaff
Neda Askari, Renu Gupta, Neesha Hussain‐Shamsy, Lucy C. Barker, Trevor Champagne, Raymond W. Lam, Katie Bishop, Jenna Pirmohamed, Maria Michalowska, Vishva Shah, Hailey Katzman, Anushika Shanmuganathan, Simone N. Vigod

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Psychiatry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialAnxietyMedicineDepression (economics)RandomizationHamilton Anxiety Rating ScaleEdinburgh Postnatal Depression ScaleRating scalePhysical therapyClinical trialPsychiatryPsychologyDepressive symptomsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: As few as 20% of perinatal patients with depression or anxiety are treated to remission. Measurement-based care (MBC) improves patient outcomes but has not been evaluated for perinatal mental illness. We aimed to assess the feasibility of an MBC protocol in perinatal patients experiencing depression and/or anxiety symptoms. METHODS: In this pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT), perinatal people with Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) scores ≥ 13 were randomized 1:1 to (1) an electronic MBC (eMBC) intervention embedded in an electronic health record (EHR) that included scales assessing symptoms and functioning at each clinical visit or (2) usual care, for 12 weeks post-randomization. The primary outcome was feasibility (recruitment, acceptability, trial protocol adherence). While not powered to detect clinically significant differences on clinical outcomes, we also measured depressive and anxiety symptoms (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, MADRS; Hamilton Anxiety Scale, HAM-A). RESULTS: Of 42 participants (n = 21/arm), 32 (76.2%) completed follow-up questionnaires. At least one scale was completed in 87.5% of clinical encounters, but only 68.8% of encounters included documented participant-provider discussion of the results. Acceptability was good, with opportunities identified for improvement from participant and provider perspectives. At 12-weeks post-randomization, MADRS and HAM-A scores were non-signficantly lower in the eMBC group (mean differences: -1.10, 95%CI -7.81 to 5.61; -1.28, 95%CI -4.69 to 2.12). CONCLUSIONS: The protocol evaluated in this study was feasible, which supports proceeding to a larger RCT to evaluate efficacy with minor modifications. If effective, an EHR-integrated eMBC intervention for perintal depression and anxiety could be implemented widely. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (NCT04836585). Registration Date: 08/04/2021.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC PsychiatrySame topicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumFrench-language works237,207