| Literature DB >> 19147637 |
C-L Dennis1, E Hodnett, L Kenton, J Weston, J Zupancic, D E Stewart, A Kiss.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of telephone based peer support in the prevention of postnatal depression.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19147637 PMCID: PMC2628301 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.a3064
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ ISSN: 0959-8138

Flow of participants through trial
Baseline characteristics of randomised participants. Figures are numbers (percentages) of women
| Peer support group (n=349) | Control group (n=352) | |
|---|---|---|
| Baseline EPDS score >12 | 131 (38) | 144 (41) |
| Age (years): | ||
| <20 | 15 (4) | 11 (3) |
| 20-34 | 271 (78) | 275 (78) |
| ≥35 | 63 (18) | 66 (19) |
| Married/cohabiting | 323 (93) | 323 (92) |
| Completed education: | ||
| Elementary | 12 (3) | 10 (3) |
| High school | 58 (17) | 77 (22) |
| College | 93 (27) | 87 (25) |
| Undergraduate university | 138 (40) | 124 (35) |
| Graduate university | 48 (14) | 54 (15) |
| Self reported ethnicity: | ||
| Canadian | 275 (79) | 293 (83) |
| Other | 72 (21) | 59 (17) |
| Born in Canada: | ||
| Yes | 198 (57) | 215 (61) |
| No | 151* (43) | 137 (39) |
| No of years in Canada for immigrant women: | ||
| ≤5 | 57† (38) | 65 (48) |
| >5 | 94 (62) | 72 (53) |
| Annual household income ($C): | ||
| 0-19 999 | 22‡ (9) | 27 (11) |
| 20 000-39 999 | 33 (13) | 44 (18) |
| 40 000-59 999 | 36 (15) | 39 (16) |
| 60 000-79 999 | 44 (18) | 42 (17) |
| ≥80 000 | 111 (45) | 94 (38) |
| History of any depression | 241 (69) | 242 (69) |
| History of postnatal depression | 22 (6) | 35 (10) |
| Primiparous | 207 (59) | 209 (59) |
| Vaginal delivery | 227 (65) | 231 (66) |
| Breast feeding | 260 (75) | 267 (76) |
| Satisfaction with support from baby’s father: | ||
| Very satisfied/satisfied | 269 (78) | 269 (77) |
| OK | 46 (13) | 47 (13) |
| Unsatisfied/very unsatisfied | 26 (8) | 25 (7) |
| Not in contact | 6 (2) | 10 (3) |
| No family member or friend to help | 42 (12) | 41 (12) |
| No one with baby or young children to talk to | 66 (19) | 61 (17) |
| <2 years in current home | 165 (47) | 163 (46) |
EPDS=Edinburgh postnatal depression scale.
*Most common were South Asian (such as Indian, Pakistani), East/Southeast Asian (such as Chinese), Caribbean, and African. Other ethnic origins included Arab, South American, and Eastern/Southern European.
†n=151 for intervention group, 137 for control group.
‡n=246 for intervention group, 246 for control group.
Mean (SD) scores for postnatal depression, anxiety, loneliness, and use of health services at 12 and 24 weeks according to group
| Time (weeks) | Peer support | Control | t | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EPDS: | ||||
| 12* | 7.93 (4.68) | 8.89 (5.24) | 2.37 | 0.02 |
| 24† | 7.00 (4.66) | 7.61 (4.59) | 1.62 | 0.10 |
| State-trait anxiety inventory: | ||||
| 12 | 35.10 (11.85) | 36.88 (12.84) | 1.77 | 0.08 |
| 24 | 33.63 (11.01) | 34.40 (12.07) | 0.82 | 0.41 |
| UCLA loneliness scale: | ||||
| 12 | 19.59 (6.16) | 20.14 (6.31) | 1.08 | 0.28 |
| 24 | 18.76 (6.34) | 19.44 (6.00) | 1.35 | 0.17 |
| Health service use: | ||||
| 12 | 4.97 (1.62) | 4.85 (1.52) | 0.90 | 0.37 |
| 24 | 2.83 (1.53) | 2.86 (1.62) | 0.21 | 0.83 |
EPDS=Edinburgh postnatal depression scale.
*n=297 for peer support group, 315 for control group.
†n=289 for peer support group, 311 for control group.
Variables retained in multiple logistic regression model predictive of EPDS >12 at 12 weeks
| Variable | Estimate | χ2 | P value | Odds ratio (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study group | −0.41 | 13.69 | 0.0002 | 0.44 (0.28 to 0.68) |
| History of any depression | −0.55 | 26.24 | <0.0001 | 0.33 (0.21 to 0.50) |
| Someone with baby or young children to talk to | 0.42 | 11.69 | 0.0006 | 2.34 (1.44 to 3.80) |
EPDS=Edinburgh postnatal depression scale.
Maternal perceptions of peer support. Figures are numbers (percentages) of women
| Item | Strongly agree/agree | Unsure | Strongly disagree/disagree |
|---|---|---|---|
| My peer provided the assistance I needed | 143 (72) | 37 (19) | 18 (9) |
| My peer met my expectations | 140 (70) | 39 (20) | 20 (10) |
| I liked my peer | 184 (92) | 13 (7) | 3 (2) |
| Receiving support from my peer was convenient for me | 157 (79) | 22 (11) | 19 (10) |
| I was able to talk to my peer when I needed to | 144 (73) | 31 (16) | 22 (11) |
| My peer telephoned when planned | 162 (82) | 20 (10) | 17 (9) |
| I had enough contact with my peer | 147 (74) | 24 (12) | 29 (15) |
| I liked the support over the telephone | 157 (79) | 27 (14) | 16 (8) |
| I would recommend this type of support to a friend | 166 (83) | 26 (13) | 8 (4) |
| For my situation one to one support was better than group support | 136 (68) | 40 (20) | 24 (12) |
| Overall, I am satisfied with my peer support experience | 161 (81) | 22 (11) | 17 (9) |