MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

“I’m not alone”: perinatal women’s experiences in an online self-directed program for perinatal anxiety

2025· other· en· W6921607842 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Robotics and Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisAnxietyQualitative researchIntervention (counseling)Qualitative propertyRandomized controlled trialContent analysisData collectionCognitive behavioral therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Anxiety is highly prevalent during pregnancy and postpartum, and access to treatment can be difficult due to a range of barriers (e.g., time, distance, and service availability). Online treatments have the potential to circumvent these barriers and may, therefore, be beneficial for the perinatal population. The present study leveraged qualitative methods to understand participants’ perspectives on their use of a six-module online self-directed Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) program for perinatal anxiety as part of a randomized controlled trial. Methods A mixed qualitative method design was used for this study. A total of 95 perinatal women were randomized to an intervention or waitlist control condition for an online self-directed program (Overcoming Perinatal Anxiety; OPA). Both waitlist and intervention participants provided open-ended feedback on each module via online surveys. A subset of individuals (n = 20) assigned to the intervention condition completed a virtual qualitative interview about their experiences using the program. Data obtained from open-ended survey questions and qualitative interviews were analyzed using Conventional Content Analysis (open-ended survey) and Reflexive Thematic Analysis (interviews). Results Open-ended survey data were categorized into three themes, with associated sub-themes: User experience (subthemes: accessibility and modality), Perceptions of content (sub-themes: validating, informative, hopeful, anxiety-inducing, emotionally “heavy”, and helpful), and Barriers to program engagement (subthemes: lack of time and energy, technical difficulties, challenging and external factors). Qualitative interview data were categorized into the following main themes, with associated subthemes: Tensions in engaging with the self-directed program (subthemes: connecting and multi-tasking, “finding the time,” module length and pacing, pen to paper, and “thanks for the reminder but don’t rush me”), “I’m not alone,” (subthemes: relating to the content, sharing anxiety with “inner circle,” and voicing a desire to connect with other “moms feeling the same way”), and “I’m managing my anxiety” (subthemes: “understanding my anxiety,” using “strategies to help with my anxiety,” “taking time for myself,” and moving forward). Conclusion Findings highlight that online self-directed treatment can be an acceptable and feasible option for perinatal anxiety. Findings show promise for the scalability of OPA to improve access to psychological treatment for perinatal people experiencing anxiety. Trial registration Clinical Trial Identifier: NCT04844138 (clinicaltrials.gov). Trial registration submitted: [April 5, 2021] accepted: [April 14, 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.633
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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 venueFigshareSame topicEducational Robotics and EngineeringFrench-language works237,207