@文章{info:doi/10.2196/23659，作者=“Kavanagh, David John和Connolly, Jennifer和Fisher, Jane和Halford, W Kim和Hamilton, Kyra和Hides, Leanne和Milgrom, Jeannette和Rowe, Heather和Scuffham, Paul A和White, Katherine M和Wittkowski, Anja和Appleton, Shelley和Sanders, Davina”，标题=“新生儿父母幸福的婴儿步网络计划:随机对照试验”，期刊=“J Med Internet Res”，年=“2021”，月=“11月”，日=“26”，卷=“23”，数=“11”，页数=“e23659”，关键词=“围产期;抑郁症;预防;男性;自导的;背景:初为父母的人面临情绪困扰和关系不满的风险增加。数字干预增加了支持的获取，但很少有针对父母双方优化的预防方案。目的:本研究旨在开展首个关于通用自我引导数字程序的随机对照试验，以支持母亲和父亲积极的围产期调整。比较了儿童保育信息(婴儿护理)和信息加互动项目(婴儿步健康)的效果，从妊娠晚期基线到随后的3个月和6个月。 Methods: The study recruited 388 co-parenting male-female adult couples expecting their first single child (26-38 weeks' gestation), using web-based registration. Most (337/388, 86.8{\%}) were obtained from prenatal hospital classes. Couples' randomization was automated and stratified by Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) scores (50{\%} couples scored high if either mother >7, father >5). All assessments were web-based self-reports: the EPDS and psychosocial quality of life were primary outcomes; relationship satisfaction, social support, and self-efficacy for parenting and support provision were secondary. Linear mixed models provided intention-to-treat analyses, with linear and quadratic effects for time and random intercepts for participants and couples. Results: Selection criteria were met by 63.9{\%} (248/388) of couples, who were all randomized. Most participants were married (400/496, 80.6{\%}), tertiary educated (324/496, 65.3{\%}), employed full time (407/496, 82{\%}), and born in Australia (337/496, 67.9{\%}). Their mean age was 32.2 years, and average gestation was 30.8 weeks. Using an EPDS cutoff score of 13, 6.9{\%} (18/248) of men, and 16.1{\%} (40/248) of women screened positive for depression at some time during the 6 months. Retention of both partners was 80.6{\%} (201/248) at the 6-month assessments, and satisfaction with both programs was strong (92{\%} ≥50). Only 37.3{\%} (185/496) of participants accessed their program more than once, with higher rates for mothers (133/248, 53.6{\%}) than fathers (52/248, 20.9{\%}; P<.001). The EPDS, quality of life, and social support did not show differential improvements between programs, but Baby Steps Wellbeing gave a greater linear increase in self-efficacy for support provision (P=.01; Cohen d=0.26) and lower reduction in relationship satisfaction (P=.03; Cohen d=0.20) than Baby Care alone. Mothers had greater linear benefits in parenting self-efficacy over time than fathers after receiving Baby Steps Wellbeing rather than Baby Care (P=.01; Cohen d=0.51). However, the inclusion of program type in analyses on parenting self-efficacy and relationship satisfaction did not improve model fit above analyses with only parent gender and time. Conclusions: Three secondary outcomes showed differential benefits from Baby Steps Wellbeing, but for one (parenting self-efficacy), the effect only occurred for mothers, perhaps reflecting their greater program use. Increased engagement will be needed for more definitive testing of the potential benefits of Baby StepsWellbeing for perinatal adjustment. Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12614001256662; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=367277 ", issn="1438-8871", doi="10.2196/23659", url="//www.mybigtv.com/2021/11/e23659", url="https://doi.org/10.2196/23659", url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34842534" }