ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Widening access to perinatal mental health group interventions: learning from a trial of the Circle of Security-Parenting programme in England.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Perinatal mental health (PMH) difficulties can adversely affect family relationships across generations. Timely treatment can prevent these impacts, yet inequalities in access persist. Service delivery has also changed rapidly in recent years, including increased provision of online mental health care, creating additional access considerations. This paper offers a framework for widening access to group-based interventions, informed by an analysis of barriers and facilitators to birthing parents accessing the Circle of Security-Parenting (COS-P) programme-an attachment-based group provided by community Perinatal Mental Health Services (PMHS) in England. Methods: COS-P recipients (birthing parents, typically mothers) and COS-P providers (practitioners) were recruited from a randomised controlled trial involving 10 PMHS in England delivering 51 COS-P groups. The 10-session group intervention was delivered predominantly online, with babies present. Accessibility data were collected via surveys (165 parents), interviews (58 parents and 7 practitioners), and focus groups (6 practitioners). A research team, including co-researchers with lived experience, undertook qualitative content analysis to identify barriers and facilitators to accessing COS-P and to explore how these operated across different aspects of the intervention format. Recommendations were co-produced with a lived-experience panel to inform how access might be widened. Results: We developed an access framework conceptualising access as a pathway involving four steps: attend, take part, understand, and apply. This enabled examination of how 13 barriers and facilitators manifested in relation to each aspect of the intervention format, and how they influenced pathway steps individually, cumulatively, or in opposing ways. Features that supported attendance sometimes constrained opportunities to take part, understand, or apply learning. The influence of barriers and facilitators also varied by individual and family context, and by location context-defined as where access happens (community venues, homes, online spaces) and when it happens (during or between sessions). Conclusion: Recognising the complexity of accessibility may support efforts to widen access in ways that are more meaningful to individuals and families. These findings extend beyond COS-P, offering a framework to improve equitable access to group-based psychological interventions in the perinatal period and helping ensure that seemingly convenient ways of working do not inadvertently perpetuate inequalities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.