Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35073867›Full record

SynthesisBMC psychiatry2022

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

Ahmed Waqas, Ahmreen Koukab, Hafsa Meraj, Tarun Dua, Neerja Chowdhary, Batool Fatima, Atif Rahman

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
20.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

59 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 109 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Ahmed WaqasInstitute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GF, UK. ahmed.waqas@liverpool.ac.uk.
Ahmreen KoukabHuman Development Research Foundation, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Hafsa MerajHuman Development Research Foundation, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Tarun DuaDepartment of Mental Health and Substance Use, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Neerja ChowdharyDepartment of Mental Health and Substance Use, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Batool FatimaDepartment of Mental Health and Substance Use, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Atif RahmanInstitute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GF, UK.
World Health Organization · CHHuman Development Research Foundation · PKUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

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).

Indexed as

DepressionMental HealthAnxietyAnxiety DisordersChildFemaleHumansInfantParturitionPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID35073867
PMCPMC8787899
OpenAlexW4220681194

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.