RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Group therapy interventions have shown to improve scores on postpartum depression and anxiety inventories. Our institution underwent transition from in-person (IP) to virtual platform (VP) over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study's objective is to examine whether VP has similar participation rates and outcomes as IP. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of women who attended the perinatal mood disorders (PMD) support group. Between January 2019 and June 2021, the group transitioned from IP to VP sessions. Participants attending both IP and VP sessions were excluded. The participation rates and outcomes of IP and VP support groups were compared. Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Score (EPDS) and Mills Inventory (MI) were used to assess clinical improvement. P value of.05 is considered significant. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-seven women (85 [62%] IP and 52 [38%] VP) participated. Baseline characteristics were similar (P >.05). Most of the participants were 1–6 months postpartum (P =.38). The average number of sessions attended by IP was 3.86 versus 3.76 by VP (P =.41). The preintervention average EPDS scores were 15.56 in IP versus 14.76 in VP (P =.79), and MI scores were 52.48 (IP) versus 46.06 in VP (P =.07). The EPDS and MI mean scores decreased postintervention. The average decrease in EPDS score is 5.08 in IP versus 6 in VP (P =.36). The average decrease in MI score is 17.86 in IP versus 15.56 in VP (P =.25). CONCLUSION: The VP has similar participation and outcomes as IP format. The VP is a feasible and effective method of delivering support to women with PMD. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Obstetrics & Gynecology is the property of Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)
RESUMO
Objectives: We aimed to describe conditions of confinement among people incarcerated in the United States during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic using a community-science data collection approach. Methods: We developed a web-based survey with community partners to collect information on confinement conditions (COVID-19 safety, basic needs, support). Formerly incarcerated adults released after March 1, 2020, or nonincarcerated adults in communication with an incarcerated person (proxy) were recruited through social media from July 25, 2020 to March 27, 2021. Descriptive statistics were estimated in aggregate and separately by proxy or formerly incarcerated status. Responses between proxy and formerly incarcerated respondents were compared using Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests based on α=0.05. Results: Of 378 responses, 94% were by proxy, and 76% reflected state prison conditions. Participants reported inability to physically distance (≥6 ft at all times; 92%), inadequate access to soap (89%), water (46%), toilet paper (49%), and showers (68%) for incarcerated people. Among those receiving prepandemic mental health care, 75% reported reduced care for incarcerated people. Responses were consistent between formerly incarcerated and proxy respondents, although responses by formerly incarcerated people were limited. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that a web-based community-science data collection approach through nonincarcerated community members is feasible; however, recruitment of recently released individuals may require additional resources. Our data obtained primarily through individuals in communication with an incarcerated person suggest COVID-19 safety and basic needs were not sufficiently addressed within some carceral settings in 2020-2021. The perspectives of incarcerated individuals should be leveraged in assessing crisis-response strategies.