Social Factors and the Risk of Postpartum Depression during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: To investigate the effects of social factors including social support and social restriction on postpartum depression (PPD) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We conducted a systematic review with PubMed and Web of Science from 1 January 2020 to 1 April 2023. Articles focusing on social factors and PPD during COVID-19 pandemic were investigated. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Scale were used to evaluate quality of literatures. Results: We included 31 articles (22 cross-sectional studies and 9 cohort studies) with good quality. Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) was used as the preferred measure for defining PPD. Social support reduced the prevalence of developing PPD by 30%–40%. Social restriction increased the risk of PPD but there was lack of evidence or effective scales to define restriction. Conclusions: We found that social support acted as an important protective factor for PPD during the COVID-19 pandemic and that social restriction increased the risk of PPD. EPDS may be an optimal choice for researchers to define PPD. Obstetricians should underline social factors for both pregnancy women and their families. The study was registered on PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/), registration number: CRD42023434485.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".