Screening programs for common maternal mental health disorders among perinatal women: report of the systematic review of evidence

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Postpartum depression and anxiety are highly prevalent worldwide. Fisher et al., estimated the prevalence of depression and anxiety at 15.6% during the antenatal and 19.8% during the postpartum period. Their impact on maternal and child health is well-recognized among the public health community, accounting for high societal costs. The public health impact of these conditions has highlighted the need to focus on the development and provision of effective prevention and treatment strategies.

In recent decades, some advances have been made in the development of effective universal and targeted screening programmes for perinatal depression and anxiety disorders. Recent research has shown potential benefits of universal and targeted screening for perinatal depression, to identify and treat undiagnosed cases, and help thwart its deleterious consequences. Ethical implications, however, for these screening programmes, without the provision of treatment have often been emphasized.

The present mixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to collate evidence for screening programmes for perinatal depression and anxiety. It aims to answer the following questions, in a global context: For women in the perinatal period, do screening programmes for perinatal depression and anxiety compared with no screening improve maternal mental health and infant outcomes?

A series of meta-analyses reveal a reduction in perinatal depression and anxiety among perinatal women undergoing screening programmes. For the outcome of depressive disorder, meta-analysis indicates a positive impact in favour of the intervention group (OR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.66, n = 9009), with moderate quality of evidence. A significant improvement (high quality) was also observed in symptoms of anxiety among perinatal women (SMD = − 0.18, 95% CI: − 0.25 to − 0.12, n = 3654).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12888-022-03694-9.

Related collections

Most cited references 54

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

Julian P. T. Higgins, Douglas G. Altman, Peter C. Gøtzsche … (2014)

Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate

0 comments Cited 7545 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.

Gordon Guyatt, Andrew D Oxman, Elie A. Akl … (2011)

This article is the first of a series providing guidance for use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system of rating quality of evidence and grading strength of recommendations in systematic reviews, health technology assessments (HTAs), and clinical practice guidelines addressing alternative management options. The GRADE process begins with asking an explicit question, including specification of all important outcomes. After the evidence is collected and summarized, GRADE provides explicit criteria for rating the quality of evidence that include study design, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and magnitude of effect. Recommendations are characterized as strong or weak (alternative terms conditional or discretionary) according to the quality of the supporting evidence and the balance between desirable and undesirable consequences of the alternative management options. GRADE suggests summarizing evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative summary of findings tables that show the quality of evidence and the magnitude of relative and absolute effects for each important outcome and/or as evidence profiles that provide, in addition, detailed information about the reason for the quality of evidence rating. Subsequent articles in this series will address GRADE's approach to formulating questions, assessing quality of evidence, and developing recommendations. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

0 comments Cited 2135 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test.

M. Egger, G Davey Smith, M. Schneider … (1997)

Funnel plots (plots of effect estimates against sample size) may be useful to detect bias in meta-analyses that were later contradicted by large trials. We examined whether a simple test of asymmetry of funnel plots predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared to large trials, and we assessed the prevalence of bias in published meta-analyses. Medline search to identify pairs consisting of a meta-analysis and a single large trial (concordance of results was assumed if effects were in the same direction and the meta-analytic estimate was within 30% of the trial); analysis of funnel plots from 37 meta-analyses identified from a hand search of four leading general medicine journals 1993-6 and 38 meta-analyses from the second 1996 issue of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Degree of funnel plot asymmetry as measured by the intercept from regression of standard normal deviates against precision. In the eight pairs of meta-analysis and large trial that were identified (five from cardiovascular medicine, one from diabetic medicine, one from geriatric medicine, one from perinatal medicine) there were four concordant and four discordant pairs. In all cases discordance was due to meta-analyses showing larger effects. Funnel plot asymmetry was present in three out of four discordant pairs but in none of concordant pairs. In 14 (38%) journal meta-analyses and 5 (13%) Cochrane reviews, funnel plot asymmetry indicated that there was bias. A simple analysis of funnel plots provides a useful test for the likely presence of bias in meta-analyses, but as the capacity to detect bias will be limited when meta-analyses are based on a limited number of small trials the results from such analyses should be treated with considerable caution.

0 comments Cited 1605 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Ahmed Waqas: ahmed.waqas@liverpool.ac.uk

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMC Psychiatry

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): BMC Psychiatry

Title: BMC Psychiatry

Publisher: BioMed Central (London )

ISSN (Electronic): 1471-244X

Publication date (Electronic): 24 January 2022

Publication date PMC-release: 24 January 2022

Publication date Collection: 2022

Volume: 22

Electronic Location Identifier: 54

Affiliations

[1 ]GRID grid.10025.36, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8470, Institute of Population Health, , University of Liverpool, ; Liverpool, L69 3GF UK

[2 ]GRID grid.490844.5, Human Development Research Foundation, ; Islamabad, Pakistan

[3 ]GRID grid.3575.4, ISNI 0000000121633745, Department of Mental Health and Substance Use, , World Health Organization, ; Geneva, Switzerland

Article

Publisher ID: 3694

DOI: 10.1186/s12888-022-03694-9

PMC ID: 8787899

PubMed ID: 35073867

SO-VID: 9d73aa5b-bad2-4753-979e-0df6642b6c88

License:

Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

History

Date received : 11 July 2021

Date accepted : 5 January 2022

Custom metadata

ScienceOpen disciplines: Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry

Data availability:

ScienceOpen disciplines: Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Cited by 18

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 2,322

See all reference authors

Screening programs for common maternal mental health disorders among perinatal women: report of the systematic review of evidence

Read this article at

Abstract

Supplementary Information

Related collections

Measurement of Glucocorticoid Receptor Signaling in Major Depression

Most cited references 54

The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.

Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test.

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Article

History

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 256

Cited by 18

Most referenced authors 2,322