Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31469080›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2019

Evaluation of a Technology-Based Peer-Support Intervention Program for Preventing Postnatal Depression (Part 2): Qualitative Study.

Shefaly Shorey, Esperanza Debby Ng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Implementation of a Machine Learning Risk Prediction Model for Postpartum Depression in the Electronic Health Records.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2024
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Shefaly ShoreyAlice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-5583-2814
Esperanza Debby NgAlice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-3142-1804

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial support is known to reduce risks of postnatal depression (PND) and improve maternal emotional well-being. However, the Asian cultural context is often neglected when appraising maternal needs and mothers' preferences for social support. While many preventive efforts have experimented with technology, professionals, and paraprofessionals in providing social support to mothers in need, most studies determined the effectiveness of their interventions through quantitative measurements of maternal outcomes. Experiences and feedback from both participants and administrators are rarely discussed, especially in an Asian setting.

objectiveThe goal of the research was to evaluate the postnatal experiences of Asian mothers at risk of PND and the perceptions of peer volunteers regarding a technology-based peer-support intervention program (PIP).

methodsA qualitative semistructured interview was conducted with 20 Asian mothers at risk of depression (10 from the control group and 10 from the intervention group) and 19 peer volunteers from a randomized controlled trial. The PIP included weekly correspondence between peer volunteers and mothers through any telecommunication means over 4 weeks. All interviews were approximately 30 to 60 minutes long, audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis. Study findings were reported according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials checklist.

resultsTwo overarching themes comprising five subthemes were generated: postnatal experience (a bouncy ride, a way forward) and evaluation of the PIP (valuable, flexible, and supportive program; building blocks of a good relationship; and lessons learned and the road ahead). Mothers from both the control and interventions groups were generally satisfied with hospital care and the support received from family. They also shared similar breastfeeding challenges and needs for more informed decisions and follow-up support from the hospital. However, mothers who received the PIP tended to have more positive outlooks of their birth experiences. Overall, peer volunteers and mothers involved in the PIP found the PIP useful and expressed satisfaction with the program's flexibility. They also shared their personal takeaways, the qualities of their friendships, and the need for extended correspondence time and recommended outreach to non-at-risk mothers.

conclusionsThe positive endorsement of the PIP by peer volunteers and mothers suggests the success of the PIP in maintaining positive maternal emotional well-being during the postpartum period. With the help of technology, hospitals can easily provide additional peer support to at-risk mothers in addition to existing standard care offered to these mothers.

trial registrationISRCTN Registry ISRCTN14864807; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN14864807. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/resprot.9416.

Indexed as

Peer GroupSocial SupportAdultDepression, PostpartumFemaleHumansMothersQualitative ResearchYoung Adultdepressiondigital healthinternetmothersonline support groupspeer supportpeer-to-peer supportpostpartumqualitativesocial supporttelecommunication

Identifiers

PMID31469080
PMCPMC6740164

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.