ArticlePLOS global public health2024
Non-specialist delivered psycho-social interventions for women with perinatal depression living in rural communities: A systematic review.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Experiences of human immunodeficiency virus-positive postpartum women in Angola: Challenges and opportunities in preventing vertical transmission.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2026Article
- Identification, Prevention, and Treatment of Perinatal Depression in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Narrative Review.Biological psychiatry · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evidence from low- and middle-income countries suggests that non-specialist-delivered interventions effectively improve access to perinatal mental health care. However, there have been no systematic attempts to synthesize the evidence on effectiveness, relevance, and application of this strategy to resource-limited settings such as rural areas. The aim of this review is to synthesize the evidence about the effectiveness of non-specialist delivered interventions in improving depression and related outcomes in women with perinatal depression living in rural communities. Seven electronic databases were searched using the following search concepts: perinatal depression (e.g., puerperal depression, antenatal depression), rural areas (e.g., remote, nonmetropolitan, underserved), and non-specialist workers (e.g., lay worker, volunteer aide, informal caretaker. The risk of bias was assessed using RoB-2 and ROBINS-I tools. A narrative synthesis was performed as the high degree of study heterogeneity precluded a meta-analysis. Nine unique studies were eligible for inclusion. Psychoeducation and problem-solving techniques were the most used intervention elements. Two interventions significantly reduced the prevalence of perinatal depression compared to usual care, and three interventions reported effectiveness in reducing depression symptom severity. There was little to no consistent evidence for other outcomes, including but not limited to maternal health care utilization, breastfeeding behaviors, and child health. This review provides limited evidence to suggest that non-specialist delivered interventions effectively improved outcomes among women with perinatal depression living in rural communities. The paucity of high-quality studies included in this review demonstrates that this rural demographic is frequently neglected in the context of maternal mental health research.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.