Shannon N Lenze1, Mary Anne Potts2. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, United States. Electronic address: lenzes@psychiatry.wustl.edu. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Depression is common in low-income pregnant women, and treatments need to be fitted to meet their needs. We conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing brief Interpersonal Psychotherapy (brief-IPT) to enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU) for perinatal depression in low-income women. The brief-IPT model is designed to better engage low-income women by utilizing an engagement session, providing flexible delivery of sessions, and pragmatic case management. METHODS:Pregnant women, aged ≥18, between 12 and 30 weeks gestation were recruited from an urban prenatal clinic. Women scoring ≥10 on the Edinburgh Depression Scale and meeting depressive disorder criteria were randomized to either brief-IPT (n=21) or ETAU (n=21). We assessed treatment outcomes, acceptability, and feasibility of the intervention (measured by session attendance). RESULTS:Depression scores significantly decreased in both brief-IPT and ETAU. Brief-IPT participants reported significant improvements in social support satisfaction as compared to ETAU participants, even after controlling for concurrent depressive symptoms. Brief-IPT participants reported high satisfaction with the program. However, many participants did not participate in the full 9-session course of treatment (average sessions attended =6, range 0-17). LIMITATIONS: Small sample size, use of self-report measures, and lack of an active psychotherapy control group limits interpretation of study results. CONCLUSIONS:Brief-IPT for perinatal depression is acceptable to low-income women and is helpful for improving depressive symptoms and social support. However, feasibility of the treatment was limited by relatively low session attendance in spite of efforts to maximize treatment engagement. Additional modifications to meet the needs of low-income women are discussed.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Depression is common in low-income pregnant women, and treatments need to be fitted to meet their needs. We conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing brief Interpersonal Psychotherapy (brief-IPT) to enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU) for perinatal depression in low-income women. The brief-IPT model is designed to better engage low-income women by utilizing an engagement session, providing flexible delivery of sessions, and pragmatic case management. METHODS: Pregnant women, aged ≥18, between 12 and 30 weeks gestation were recruited from an urban prenatal clinic. Women scoring ≥10 on the Edinburgh Depression Scale and meeting depressive disorder criteria were randomized to either brief-IPT (n=21) or ETAU (n=21). We assessed treatment outcomes, acceptability, and feasibility of the intervention (measured by session attendance). RESULTS:Depression scores significantly decreased in both brief-IPT and ETAU. Brief-IPTparticipants reported significant improvements in social support satisfaction as compared to ETAUparticipants, even after controlling for concurrent depressive symptoms. Brief-IPTparticipants reported high satisfaction with the program. However, many participants did not participate in the full 9-session course of treatment (average sessions attended =6, range 0-17). LIMITATIONS: Small sample size, use of self-report measures, and lack of an active psychotherapy control group limits interpretation of study results. CONCLUSIONS:Brief-IPT for perinatal depression is acceptable to low-income women and is helpful for improving depressive symptoms and social support. However, feasibility of the treatment was limited by relatively low session attendance in spite of efforts to maximize treatment engagement. Additional modifications to meet the needs of low-income women are discussed.
Authors: Veerle Bergink; Libbe Kooistra; Mijke P Lambregtse-van den Berg; Henny Wijnen; Robertas Bunevicius; Anneloes van Baar; Victor Pop Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 2010-12-10 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Jeanne Miranda; Joyce Y Chung; Bonnie L Green; Janice Krupnick; Juned Siddique; Dennis A Revicki; Tom Belin Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-07-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Yaminette Diaz-Linhart; Michael Silverstein; Nancy Grote; Lynn Cadena; Emily Feinberg; Betty J Ruth; Howard Cabral Journal: Soc Work Public Health Date: 2016-05-19
Authors: Lehana Thabane; Jinhui Ma; Rong Chu; Ji Cheng; Afisi Ismaila; Lorena P Rios; Reid Robson; Marroon Thabane; Lora Giangregorio; Charles H Goldsmith Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2010-01-06 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Allison J Carroll; Anna E Jaffe; Kimberley Stanton; Constance Guille; Gweneth B Lazenby; David E Soper; Amanda K Gilmore; Lauren Holland-Carter Journal: J Clin Psychol Med Settings Date: 2020-06
Authors: Luca Rollè; Maura Giordano; Fabrizio Santoniccolo; Tommaso Trombetta Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-04-12 Impact factor: 3.390