CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumDigital Mental Health InterventionsPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology

Online Peer-Delivered 1-Day Cognitive Behavioral Therapy–Based Workshops for Postpartum Depression: A Pilot Study

Open access
Merza, Donya, Layton, Haley, Savoy, Calan, Babiy, Zoryana, Campbell, Madisyn, Bieling, Peter J., Brown, June S. L., Lieshout, Ryan J. Van·2023·The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
DOI 10.4088/jcp.22br14574
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Brief Report P ostpartum depression (PPD) affects up to 20% of mothers and birthing parents, yet only 1 in 10 receive evidence-based treatment.1 Barriers include time limitations, long waitlists, and concerns about stigma and judgment by health care providers.Peer-administered interventions, those delivered by recovered former sufferers, can reduce stigma and convey valuable experiential knowledge, promote normalization, and provide role models for recovery for those with PPD. 2 Group delivery of peer-administered interventions may also be capable of cost-effectively treating PPD. 3 This study examined the feasibility of training individuals who have recovered from PPD to deliver an online 1-day cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-based workshop for PPD, assessed the acceptability of these workshops to those with current PPD, and estimated the intervention's clinical effects. MethodsThis study utilized a single-arm pre-post design with no control group and was conducted from January-February 2021.Participants self-referred in response to social media advertisements and were eligible if they lived in Ontario, Canada; were ≥ 18 years old; had an infant < 12 months old; and scored ≥ 10 on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS).No other exclusionary criteria were applied.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4088/jcp.22br14574

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 4 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Social support scores on the Social Provisions Scale improved from pre-workshop to 12 weeks post-workshop, with a medium effect size (Cohen d = 0.51).

    “| Social Provisions Scale | 73.85 (9.10) | 77.89 (10.01) | 4.04 (7.68 to 0.40) | 0.51* |”
    • Also stated in: § Results · plain
      “Medium effect size improvements were seen in social support, mother-infant bonding, rejection and pathological anger, infant-focused anxiety, and infant surgency/positive affect (Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The mean satisfaction rating of the workshop was 24.48 (SD 4.78).

    “The mean satisfaction rating of the workshop was 24.48 (4.78)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Infant-focused anxiety scores decreased from pre-workshop to 12 weeks post-workshop, with a medium effect size (Cohen d = 0.64).

    “| Infant-focused anxiety | 6.32 (3.35) | 4.40 (2.71) | -1.92 (-0.76 to -3.08) | 0.64* |”
    • Also stated in: § Results · plain
      “Medium effect size improvements were seen in social support, mother-infant bonding, rejection and pathological anger, infant-focused anxiety, and infant surgency/positive affect (Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Rejection and pathological anger scores decreased from pre-workshop to 12 weeks post-workshop, with a medium effect size (Cohen d = 0.60).

    “| Rejection and pathological anger | 7.89 (5.73) | 5.40 (4.20) | -2.49 (-0.58 to -4.40) | 0.60* |”
    • Also stated in: § Results · plain
      “Medium effect size improvements were seen in social support, mother-infant bonding, rejection and pathological anger, infant-focused anxiety, and infant surgency/positive affect (Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Impaired mother-infant bonding scores on the Postpartum Bonding Questionnaire decreased from pre-workshop to 12 weeks post-workshop, with a medium effect size (Cohen d = 0.65).

    “| Impaired bonding | 14.49 (8.15) | 10.32 (6.70) | -4.17 (-1.33 to -7.01) | 0.65* |”
    • Also stated in: § Results · plain
      “Medium effect size improvements were seen in social support, mother-infant bonding, rejection and pathological anger, infant-focused anxiety, and infant surgency/positive affect (Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 6
  • May combine two claims. 5

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    All four peers completed the training program.

    “All 4 peers completed training.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Anxiety scores on the GAD-7 decreased from pre-workshop to 12 weeks post-workshop, with a large effect size (Cohen d = 1.10).

    “| GAD-7 | 13.51 (4.50) | 7.94 (4.90) | -5.57 (-3.78 to -7.36) | 1.10* |”
    • Also stated in: § Results · plain
      “Participants reported large effect size reductions in depression and anxiety.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Depression scores on the EPDS decreased from pre-workshop to 12 weeks post-workshop, with a large effect size (Cohen d = 1.02).

    “| EPDS | 17.54 (4.10) | 12.13 (5.19) | -5.41 (-3.63 to -7.19) | 1.02* |”
    • Also stated in: § Results · plain
      “Participants reported large effect size reductions in depression and anxiety.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The peer-delivered online 1-day CBT-based workshops, the peer training package, and the data collection procedures were feasible and acceptable.

    “suggesting that the intervention and data collection procedures were feasible and acceptable.”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
      “Peer-delivered online 1-day CBT-based workshops for PPD, our peer training package, and data collection procedures were both feasible and acceptable.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The sample was mainly white.

    “was mainly white”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The sample lived in Canada, where health care is universally available.

    “lived in Canada where health care is universally available”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The sponsor had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, writing, or decision to submit.

    “The sponsor had no further role in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the report for publication.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study was approved by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (13119).

    “This study was approved by Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (13119).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The sample faced little socioeconomic disadvantage.

    “faced little socioeconomic disadvantage”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
9 of 9

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Parent bonding instrument has two names

    Minor

    The methods name the Postpartum Bonding Questionnaire, but the table labels the corresponding group of outcomes Parent Bonding Questionnaire.

  • Infant instrument has two names

    Minor

    The methods name the Infant Behavior Questionnaire-Revised, while the table calls it the Infant Bonding Questionnaire-Revised.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Merza, D., Layton, H., Savoy, C., Babiy, Z., Campbell, M., Bieling, P. J., Brown, J. S. L., & Lieshout, R. J. V.
Affiliations
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Merza, Donya
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
Publisher
Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc
Published
2023-01-02
Volume
84
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 0160-6689 (ISSN-L)
  • 1555-2101
DOI
10.4088/jcp.22br14574
OpenAlex
W4313326711
Cited by
3
References
9
Citations by year
2025: 3
FWCI
0.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
Keywords
postpartum depression, peer-mediated intervention, cognitive behavioral therapy, online workshops, peer trainers, feasibility, acceptability, stigma reduction, brief psychotherapy, maternal mental health
MeSH terms
Depression, Female, Humans, Peer Group, Pilot Projects, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, 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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-01.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-01.

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