Parental mental health in neonatal follow-up programs: parent and service provider perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neonatal Follow-up Programs (NFUPs) lack integrated parental mental health services, despite a higher prevalence of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress (PTSD) among attending parents. A convergent parallel mixed-methods design was used to answer (1) to what extent do NFUP parents have unmet mental health needs, and (2) what are parent and service provider perspectives on barriers and opportunities to increase access to mental health services? In Study 1, parents attending a Manitoba NFUP (N = 49) completed a mixed-method online survey through REDCap. Quantitative (analyzed descriptively) and qualitative data (analyzed through conventional content analysis) were integrated to elucidate parents’ mental health, related service use, barriers to service use, and service preferences. In Study 2, NFUP service providers (N = 5) participated in one of two focus groups via Zoom to discuss service improvements to address parents’ mental health service needs (analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis). The perspectives of both samples were integrated and reported using a narrative approach. Parents endorsed 2 – 4 times higher prevalence of clinically significant depression (59.2%), anxiety (28.6%), and PTSD (26.5%) than the general postpartum population. However, most parents were not using mental health services (55.1%) predominantly due to resource insecurity (e.g., time, cost, childcare, staffing, referrals). Identified service improvements include bridging the gap between services by screening for anxiety, depression, and PTSD, and developing online platforms to provide psychoeducation and peer support groups for support during stressful transitions. Future research employing the findings is warranted to improve generalizability and inform a national approach to addressing unmet parental mental health needs in NFUPs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".