Immigrant Woman at Risk for Post-Partum Depression: Integrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Immigrant Woman at Risk for Post-Partum Depression: Integrative Review\nMarch 14, 2022\nBrooke Ashton, University of Windsor\nMelissa Gjetaj, University of Windsor\nAmie Hawkins, University of Windsor\nSabreena Mirza, University of Windsor\nChanthorn Sok, University of Windsor\nBackground and Introduction\nUnderstanding the risk for immigrant mothers developing postpartum depression (PPD) is essential for implementing early intervention. An integrative review (IR) helps to identify methodological gaps and limitations which guide our practice. The purpose of this IR is to collect, analyze and integrate the literature focused on immigrant mothers ages 20-35 years of age in relation to PPD. Quantitative statistics is reviewed that reflect the interventions, study design and interpretation of the use of screening tools to effectively capture risk factors for perinatal depression in marginalized populations (Daoud. et al., 2019).\nMethods\nAn IR conducted by 5 group members, identified and evaluated peer-reviewed research studies exploring risks for immigrant mothers developing PPD. A systematic analytic method of date reduction was used to identify alignment and divergence of the data, gaps in the literature, and limitations.\nResults\nThis IR is being conducted on an ongoing basis. Twenty published research journals from 2006-2020 have been analyzed thus far. Questionnaires and scales are used to determine the level of risk of PPD. Most often used is the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. The preliminary results indicate that early detection of symptomology of PPD creates an environment of support and better health outcomes.\nConclusion\nAs a result of this review, we hope to utilize screening tools to aid in the early identification of at-risk immigrant women and provide culturally sensitive interventions and follow-up (Dharma. et al., 2019).\nKeywords\nImmigrant; PPD; intervention; nursing; immigrant women; postpartum depression; screening for postpartum depression; perinatal depression; ethnicity; Canada; intervention; nurse; environment\nReferences\nDharma, C., Lefebvre, D. L., Lu, Z., Lou, W. Y. W., Becker, A. B., Mandhane, P. J., Turvey, S. E., Moraes, T. J., Azad, M. B., Chen, E., Elliott, S. J., Kozyrskyj, A. L., Sears, M. R., & Subbarao, P. (2019). Risk for Maternal Depressive Symptoms and Perceived Stress by Ethnicities in Canada: From Pregnancy Through the Preschool Years: Risque de symptômes dépressifs maternels et stress perçu par les ethnies au Canada : de la grossesse aux années préscolaires. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 64(3), 190–198. https://doi-org.ledproxy2.uwindsor.ca/10.1177/0706743718792190\nDaoud, N., O’Brien, K., O’Campo, P., Harney, S., Harney, E., Bebee, K., Bourgeois, C., & Smylie, J. (2019). Postpartum depression prevalence and risk factors among Indigenous, non-Indigenous and immigrant women in Canada. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 110(4), 440–452. https://doi. org.ledproxy2.uwindsor.ca/10.17269/s41997-019-00182-8
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".