Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 29

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Solutions forgone? How health professionals frame the problem of postnatal depression

Lloyd, Beverley, Hawe, Penelope·2003·Social Science & Medicine
DOI 10.1016/s0277-9536(03)00061-3
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Our interest is in how particular solutions in postnatal depression have a tendency to be adopted at the expense of alternative solutions. One aspect of the answer may lie in how people in positions of authority think about problems. 'Framing' refers to the way particular causalities, consequences and moralities are contained within the ways in which people communicate concepts, in particular in language and in metaphor. Naming the way problems are framed and identifying alternative frames, (i.e., 'reframing') may provide an opportunity to set problems more effectively and to identify solutions that will solve the problem more effectively. A framing analysis was conducted, drawing on interviews with senior researchers, policy makers and practitioners in the field of postnatal depression. Seven principal ways in which the problem of postnatal depression was framed were illuminated. These fitted into three broad approaches to the problem: individual therapeutic approaches, social competence approaches and societal approaches. Participants in our study were comfortable and articulate in describing the problem of postnatal depression-whether they were focused on the individual or societal levels of analysis. However, they were less well versed and comfortable in discussing what they felt might be important social or societal-level solutions, lacking in both language and schema to do so. The history and hierarchy that is carried by people from the helping professions may be hinder…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0277-9536(03)00061-3

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Lumley, 2000, Authors’ reply to Professor Bland, British Medical Journal, 321, 1470
  2. New South Wales Health. (1994). Postnatal depression services review (pp. 94–131). Sydney: NSW Health Department, State Health Publication no. (PA).
  3. Philips, 1991, Prospective study of postpartum depression, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 151, 10.1037/0021-843X.100.2.151 · DOI
  4. Pope, S. (2000). Postnatal depression: A systematic review of published scientific literature to 1999: An information paper. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council.
  5. Powell, 2001, Qualitative research may be more appropriate, British Medical Journal, 322, 928
  6. Small, 2001, Authors’ reply about debriefing women after operative childbirth, British Medical Journal, 322, 928
  7. Stallard, 2001, Research methodology was inadequate, British Medical Journal, 322, 928
  8. Wearing, 1994, The health professions, psychiatric discourse, and the classification of mental illness, Australian Journal of Communication, 21, 53

Cited by

See all 29

Metadata

Authors
Lloyd, B., & Hawe, P.
Venue
Social Science & Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-11
Volume
57
Issue
10
Pages
1783-1795
ISSN
0277-9536
DOI
10.1016/s0277-9536(03)00061-3
Cited by
29
References
32
Language
en
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.