Psychosocial and psychological interventions for treating postpartum depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies and meta-analyses of predictive studies have consistently demonstrated the importance of psychosocial and psychological variables as postpartum depression risk factors. While interventions based on these variables may be effective treatment strategies, theoretically they may also be used in pregnancy and the early postpartum period to prevent postpartum depression. OBJECTIVES: Primary: to assess the effect of diverse psychosocial and psychological interventions compared with usual antepartum, intrapartum, or postpartum care to reduce the risk of developing postpartum depression. Secondary: to examine (1) the effectiveness of specific types of psychosocial and psychological interventions, (2) the effectiveness of professionally-based versus lay-based interventions, (3) the effectiveness of individually-based versus group-based interventions, (4) the effects of intervention onset and duration, and (5) whether interventions are more effective in women selected with specific risk factors. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2011), scanned secondary references and contacted experts in the field. We updated the search on 31 December 2012 and added the results to the awaiting classification section of the review for assessment at the next update. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials of acceptable quality comparing a psychosocial or psychological intervention with usual antenatal, intrapartum, or postpartum care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors and a research co-ordinator with Cochrane review experience participated in the evaluation of methodological quality and data extraction. Additional information was sought from several trial researchers. Results are presented using risk ratio (RR) for categorical data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-eight trials, involving almost 17,000 women, contributed data to the review. Overall, women who received a psychosocial or psychological intervention were significantly less likely to develop postpartum depression compared with those receiving standard care (average RR 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.93; 20 trials, 14,727 women). Several promising interventions include: (1) the provision of intensive, individualised postpartum home visits provided by public health nurses or midwives (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.73; two trials, 1262 women); (2) lay (peer)-based telephone support (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.77; one trial, 612 women); and (3) interpersonal psychotherapy (standardised mean difference -0.27, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.01; five trials, 366 women). Professional- and lay-based interventions were both effective in reducing the risk to develop depressive symptomatology. Individually-based interventions reduced depressive symptomatology at final assessment (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.92; 14 trials, 12,914 women) as did multiple-contact interventions (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.93; 16 trials, 11,850 women). Interventions that were initiated in the postpartum period also significantly reduced the risk to develop depressive symptomatology (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.90; 12 trials, 12,786 women). Identifying mothers 'at-risk' assisted the prevention of postpartum depression (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.88; eight trials, 1853 women). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, psychosocial and psychological interventions significantly reduce the number of women who develop postpartum depression. Promising interventions include the provision of intensive, professionally-based postpartum home visits, telephone-based peer support, and interpersonal psychotherapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".