The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Perinatal Psychiatry. Use and Misuse of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Edited by J. Cox and J. Holden. (Pp. 275; £15.00.) Gaskell: London. 1996.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“There has also been large variability in the delivery method, structure, and primary targets of these interventions.”
From Motherhood and Me (Mom-Me): The Development of an Acceptance-Based Group for Women with Postpartum Mood and Anxiety Symptoms (2022) · cites this paper as [18]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Grunberg, V. A., Geller, P. A., Durham, K., Bonacquisti, A., & Barkin, J. L. (2022) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm11092345 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- APPLEBY, L.
- Corresponding author
- APPLEBY, LOUIS
- ORCID
- APPLEBY, LOUIS
- Venue
- Psychological Medicine
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1997-05
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 741-748
- ISSN
- 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8978
- OpenAlex
- W2133408704
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2022: 1
- Type
- book review
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
- Keywords
- Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, postpartum depression, perinatal psychiatry, screening tool, maternal mental health
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
