Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37363795›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Europe2023

The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on postnatal depression: analysis of three population-based national maternity surveys in England (2014-2020).

Siân Harrison, Maria A Quigley, Gracia Fellmeth, Alan Stein, Fiona Alderdice

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet regional health. Europe, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.7field-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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Siân HarrisonNIHR Policy Research Unit in Maternal and Neonatal Health and Care, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, UK.
Maria A QuigleyNIHR Policy Research Unit in Maternal and Neonatal Health and Care, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, UK.
Gracia FellmethNIHR Policy Research Unit in Maternal and Neonatal Health and Care, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, UK.
Alan SteinDepartment of Psychiatry, Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, UK.
Fiona AlderdiceNIHR Policy Research Unit in Maternal and Neonatal Health and Care, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, UK.
University of Oxford · GBUniversity of the Witwatersrand · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Few studies have evaluated postnatal depression before and during the Covid-19 pandemic using comparable data across time. We used data from three national maternity surveys in England to compare prevalence and risk factors for postnatal depression before and during the pandemic. Methods: Analysis was conducted using population-based surveys carried out in 2014 (n = 4571), 2018 (n = 4509), and 2020 (n = 4611). Weighted prevalence estimates for postnatal depression (EPDS score ≥13) were compared across surveys. Modified Poisson regression was used to estimate adjusted risk ratios (aRR) for the association between sociodemographic, pregnancy- and birth-related, and biopsychosocial factors, and postnatal depression. Findings: Prevalence of postnatal depression increased from 10.3% in 2014 to 16.0% in 2018 (difference = +5.7% (95% CI: 4.0-7.4); RR = 1.55 (95% CI: 1.36-1.77)) and to 23.9% in 2020 (difference = +7.9% (95% CI: 5.9-9.9); RR = 1.49 (95% CI: 1.34-1.66)). Having a long-term mental health problem (aRR range = 1.48-2.02), antenatal anxiety (aRR range = 1.73-2.12) and antenatal depression (aRR range = 1.44-2.24) were associated with increased risk of postnatal depression, whereas satisfaction with birth (aRR range = 0.89-0.92) and social support (aRR range = 0.73-0.78) were associated with decreased risk before and during the pandemic. Interpretation: This analysis indicates that Covid-19 had an important negative impact on postnatal women's mental health and may have accelerated an existing trend of increasing prevalence of postnatal depression. Risk factors for postnatal depression were consistent before and during the pandemic. Timely identification, intervention and follow-up are key to supporting women at risk, and it is essential that mechanisms to support women are strengthened during times of heightened risk such as the pandemic. Funding: NIHR Policy Research Programme.

Indexed as

COVID-19 pandemicMaternal mental healthMaternity surveyPerinatal mental healthPostnatal depressionPregnancy and childbirthPrevalenceRisk factors

Identifiers

PMID37363795
PMCPMC10183799
OpenAlexW4376609833

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.