A physician-based cognitive behavioural intervention for depressed pregnant women in primary care: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depression during pregnancy affects approximately 10%-12% of women and has been associated with several negative health consequences for both the mother and the fetus/infant (Bennett, Einarson, Taddio, Koren & Einarson, 2004a). Early detection and treatment of depression is important to limit these negative effects. Non-pharmacological interventions to treat depression during pregnancy should be seriously considered as this approach avoids any unknown or known risks that might be associated with fetal exposure to medications (Cohen, Nonacs, Viguera & Reminick, 2004). Very few studies have assessed the efficacy of psychological interventions with pregnant women exhibiting depressive symptomatology. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of a physician-based cognitive behavioural (CBT) intervention on depressive symptomatology among pregnant women. In this study, 42 pregnant women exhibiting depressive symptomatology, participated in either a CBT intervention group (n =21) or a standard prenatal care group (n=21). The women in the CBT intervention group were provided with 6, 5-10 minute sessions of cognitive behavioural strategies delivered by their obstetrical physician during their pregnancy. Women in the standard care group did not receive the CBT intervention but did have access to usual prenatal care and community postpartum support services. The results indicated that overall there was a significant improvement in depressive and anxiety symptomatology for all women over time. The trends in this trial were in favor of the CBT intervention group whereby mean depression and anxiety levels were lower for the CBT intervention group at the two follow-up intervals when compared to the control group. The results also indicated that delivery of the CBT intervention was feasible, acceptable and produced relatively high rates of treatment adherence and patient satisfaction. Overall, the qualitative feedback received from study participants and the intervention physicians was very positive. The results from this study underscore the need for a large randomized controlled trial. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".