The effect of perinatal depression treatment for mothers on parenting and child development: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antenatal and postpartum depression are very common and have significant consequences for mothers and their children. This review examines which antenatal depression (AD) and postpartum depression (PPD) treatment interventions are most efficacious in improving parenting and/or child development. CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trials, Medline (OVID), Embase (OVID), PsychINFO, PsycARTICLES, AMED, and reference lists were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies assessing the effect of AD, PPD, or both treatment interventions on parenting and/or child development were included. Meta-analysis was conducted using random effects when possible. Thirty-six trials (within 40 articles) met criteria for review. Interventions include interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT), cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), peer support, maternal-child interaction guidance, and other interventions, such as massage. For AD, IPT, CBT, and massage produced large effects on parenting (e.g. adjustment and attention toward infant) and child development (e.g. behaviour). For PPD, maternal-child interaction guidance and psychotherapeutic group support produced large effects on parenting (e.g. sense of competence) and child development (e.g. cortisol). However, meta-analysis revealed nonsignificant effects of IPT on maternal-child attachment and CBT on parenting stress. Promising findings exist for IPT, CBT, maternal-child interaction guidance, massage, and psychotherapeutic group support for specific parenting and/or child development outcomes. Additional RCTs using measures already employed in the literature are required to conduct necessary meta-analysis and fully elucidate treatment effects.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".