Cited by 249Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsMaternal and Neonatal Healthcare

The Effect of Peer Support on Postpartum Depression: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Dennis, Cindy-Lee·2003·The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the effect of peer support (mother-to-mother) on depressive symptomatology among mothers identified as high-risk for postpartum depression (PPD). Method: Forty-two mothers in British Columbia were identified as high-risk for PPD according to the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) and randomly assigned to either a control group (that is, to standard community postpartum care) or an experimental group. The experimental group received standard care plus telephone-based peer support, initiated within 48 to 72 hours of randomization, from a mother who previously experienced PPD and attended a 4-hour training session. Research assistants blind to group allocation conducted follow-up assessments on diverse outcomes, including depressive symptomatology, at 4 and 8 weeks postrandomization. Results: Significant group differences were found in probable major depressive symptomatology (EPDS > 12) at the 4-week (χ 2 = 5.18, df = 1; P = 0.02) and 8-week (χ 2 = 6.37, df = 1; P = 0.01) assessments. Specifically, at the 4-week assessment 40.9% ( n = 9) of mothers in the control group scored > 12 on the EPDS, compared with only 10% ( n = 2) in the experimental group. Similar findings were found at the 8-week assessment, when 52.4% ( n = 11) of mothers in the control group scored > 12 on the EPDS, compared with 15% ( n = 3) of mothers in the experimental group. Of the 16 mothers in the experimental group who evaluated the intervention, 87.5% were satisfied with their peer-support experience. Conclusions: Telephone-based peer support may effectively decrease depressive symptomatology among new mothers. The high maternal satisfaction with, and acceptance of, the intervention suggests that a larger trial is feasible.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/070674370304800209

Cites

92 of 92 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dennis, C.-L.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Dennis, Cindy-Lee
Venue
The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2003-03
Volume
48
Issue
2
Pages
115-124
ISSN
  • 0706-7437 (ISSN-L)
  • 1497-0015
OpenAlex
W2172005526
Cited by
249
References
92
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 20
FWCI
8.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (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 › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
Keywords
postpartum depression, peer support, mother-to-mother support, telephone-delivered intervention, high-risk mothers, depressive symptoms, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, maternal satisfaction, postpartum care
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Child Care, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Loneliness, Peer Group, Pilot Projects, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Concept, Social Support, Stress, Psychological, Depression, Postpartum

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