Cited by 122Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies

A survey of patient acceptability of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) during pregnancy

Open access
Kim, Deborah R., Sockol, Laura, Barber, Jacques P., Moseley, Marian, Lamprou, Lisa, Rickels, Karl, O'Reardon, John P., Epperson, C. Neill·2011·Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract

Objective Given the data that depression is common during pregnancy and that pregnant women prefer non-medication treatment options, we hypothesize repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) may be a treatment option. Given the novelty of TMS, we sought to assess whether patient acceptability would be a barrier to enrolling pregnant women in TMS studies. Methods In Study 1, 500 pregnant women were surveyed in an outpatient, urban obstetrics clinic using the Edinburgh Depression Rating Scale (EPDS) and a treatment acceptability survey. In Study 2, 51 women were surveyed with the EPDS and acceptability survey using an informational video to increase participant knowledge about TMS. Results Approximately 25% of participants had an EPDS score of ≥12 in both studies. Psychotherapy was identified as the most acceptable treatment option. TMS was considered an unacceptable treatment option to virtually all women before the informational video. After the video, 15.7% considered TMS an acceptable treatment option. Conclusion Psychotherapy is the most acceptable treatment option for depression to pregnant women. Increasing participant knowledge about TMS increased its acceptability significantly. Large-scale multi-center trials are needed for confirmation of these results.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jad.2010.08.027

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Pregnant and postpartum women face unique barriers to obtaining nonmedication treatment such as psychotherapy, including lack of childcare, lack of time, limitations in mobility or transportation, stigma associated with depression during pregnancy, and financial concerns.

    “they also face unique barriers to obtaining such treatment, including lack of childcare, lack of time, limitations in mobility or transportation, stigma associated with depression during pregnancy, and financial concerns.17–21”

    From Pregnancy and the Acceptability of Computer-Based Versus Traditional Mental Health Treatments (2017) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Discussion reports childcare, time, transportation, stigma, and inability to pay as barriers to mental health care for pregnant women; the Results also identify transportation and work schedules as barriers. The passages do not establish these barriers specifically for postpartum women or identify limited mobility as a barrier, and they discuss treatment broadly rather than psychotherapy alone. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kim, D. R., Sockol, L., Barber, J. P., Moseley, M., Lamprou, L., Rickels, K., O'Reardon, J. P., & Epperson, C. N.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-03
Volume
129
Issue
1-3
Pages
385-390
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2013424667
Cited by
122
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 62 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
FWCI
2.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (K24DA030301)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
Keywords
repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, pregnancy, antenatal depression, treatment acceptability, patient preferences, psychotherapy, informational videos, participant knowledge, non-pharmacological treatment, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Data Collection, Depressive Disorder, Female, Gestational Age, Humans, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Patient Education as Topic, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Complications, Psychotherapy, Surveys and Questionnaires, Odds Ratio, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review