Purpose The transition to motherhood is a time of elevated risk for clinical depression. Dispositional optimism may be protective against depressive symptoms; however the arrival of a newborn presents numerous challenges that may be at odds with initially positive expectations, and which may contribute to depressed mood. We have explored the relative contributions of antenatal and postnatal optimism regarding maternity to depressive symptoms in the postnatal period. Methods 98 pregnant women underwent clinician interview in the third trimester to record psychiatric history, antenatal depressive symptoms, and administer a novel measure of optimism towards maternity. Measures of depressive symptoms, attitudes to maternity, and mother-to-infant bonding were obtained from 97 study completers at monthly intervals through three months postpartum. Results We found a positive effect of antenatal optimism, and a negative effect of postnatal disconfirmation of expectations, on depressive mood postnatally. Postnatal disconfirmation, but not antenatal optimism, was associated with more negative attitudes toward maternity postnatally. Antenatal optimism, but not postnatal disconfirmation, was associated with reduced scores on a mother-to-infant bonding measure. The relationships between antenatal optimism, postnatal disconfirmation of expectations, and postnatal depression held true among primigravidas and multigravidas, as well as among women with prior histories of mood disorders, although antenatal optimism tended to be lower among women with mental health histories. Conclusions We conclude that cautious antenatal optimism, rather than immoderate optimism or frank pessimism, is the approach that is most protective against postnatal depressive symptoms, and that this is true irrespective of either mood disorder history or parity. Factors predisposing to negative cognitive assessments and impaired mother-to-infant bonding may be substantially different than those associated with depressive symptoms, a finding that merits further study.
Objective: To compare the efficacy of mental health professional versus primary care nurse-delivered telehealth cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and supportive care (SC) treatments for chronic low back pain, using data from 2 separate randomized controlled trials. Both trials were completed in the same hospital and used the same study design, research team, and outcome measures. Materials and Methods: Participants from Study 1 (Mental Health Professional Study) (N=66; 2007 to 2011) and Study 2 (Nursing Study) (N=61; 2012 to 2016) were patients with chronic low back pain (≥4/10 intensity) randomized to either an 8-week CBT or an SC telehealth condition matched for contact frequency, format, and time. Participants completed validated measures of improvement in back pain disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMDQ]), pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale [NRS]), depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory 2 [BDI-2]), pain catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophizing Scale [PCS]), and overall improvement (Global Clinical Impressions [GCI]). Results: Intent-to-treat analyses at posttreatment showed that scores on the RMDQ (Cohen d=0.33 to 0.55), NRS (d=0.45 to 0.90), PCS (d=0.21 to 0.41), and GCI (18.5% to 39.1%) improved significantly in both studies and in both treatments from pretreatment to posttreatment. Changes in BDI scores were inconsistent (d=−0.06 to 0.51). The analyses revealed no significant differences in treatment efficacy between the trained nurse versus the mental health professionals on the RMDQ, NRS, PCS, or GCI measures (P>0.20). Discussion: Results from these clinical trials suggest that the benefits of home-based, telehealth-delivered CBT and SC treatments for chronic back pain were comparable when delivered by a primary care nurse or mental health professional.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.