The prevalence of antenatal and postnatal co-morbid anxiety and depression: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date, the precise prevalence of co-morbidity of anxiety and depression in the perinatal period is not well known. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of co-morbid anxiety and depression in the antenatal and postnatal periods. Systematic searches of multiple electronic databases were conducted for studies published between January 1950 and January 2016. We included 66 (24 published and 42 unpublished) studies incorporating 162 120 women from 30 countries. Prevalence of self-reported antenatal anxiety symptoms and mild to severe depressive symptoms was 9.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.8-11.2, 17 studies, n = 25 592] and of co-morbid anxiety symptoms and moderate/severe depressive symptoms was 6.3% (95% CI 4.8-7.7, 17 studies, n = 27 270). Prevalence of a clinical diagnosis of any antenatal anxiety disorder and depression was 9.3% (95% CI 4.0-14.7, 10 studies, n = 3918) and of co-morbid generalized anxiety disorder and depression was 1.7% (95% CI 0.2-3.1, three studies, n = 3085). Postnatally between 1 and 24 weeks postpartum, the prevalence of co-morbid anxiety symptoms and mild to severe depressive symptoms was 8.2% (95% CI 6.5-9.9, 15 studies, n = 14 731), while co-morbid anxiety symptoms and moderate/severe depressive symptoms was 5.7% (95% CI 4.3-7.1, 13 studies, n = 20 849). The prevalence of a clinical diagnosis of co-morbid anxiety and depression was 4.2% (95% CI 1.9-6.6, eight studies, n = 3251). Prevalence rates did not differ with regard to year of publication, country income, selection bias and attrition bias. The results suggest that co-morbid perinatal anxiety and depression are prevalent and warrant clinical attention given the potential negative child developmental consequences if left untreated. Further research is warranted to develop evidence-based interventions for prevention, identification and treatment of this co-morbidity.
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
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 | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.052 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".