Perinatal depression screening

Nursing ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 51 (10) ◽  
pp. 50-54
Kelly Ellington
2020 ◽  
Molly M. Long ◽  
Robert J. Cramer ◽  
Linda Bennington ◽  
Frank G. Morgan ◽  
Charles A. Wilkes ◽  

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-59 ◽  
Nicole Reilly ◽  
Dawn Kingston ◽  
Deborah Loxton ◽  
Kristina Talcevska ◽  
Marie-Paule Austin

WQ Xue ◽  
KK Cheng ◽  
D Xu ◽  
X Jin ◽  
WJ Gong

Abstract Aims Perinatal depression threatens the health of maternal women and their offspring. Although screening programs for perinatal depression exist, non-uptake of referral to further mental health care after screening reduces the utility of these programs. Uptake rates among women with positive screening varied widely across studies and little is known about how to improve the uptake rate. This study aimed to systematically review the available evidence on uptake rates, estimate the pooled rate, identify interventions to improve uptake of referral and explore the effectiveness of those interventions. Methods This systematic review has been registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42019138095). We searched Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Ovid, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang Database and VIP Databases from database inception to January 13, 2019 and scanned reference lists of relevant researches for studies published in English or Chinese. Studies providing information on uptake rate and/or effectiveness of interventions on uptake of referral were eligible for inclusion. Studies were excluded if they did not report the details of the referral process or did not provide exact uptake rate. Data provided by observational studies and quasi-experimental studies were used to estimate the pooled uptake rate through meta-analysis. We also performed meta-regression and subgroup analyses to explore the potential source of heterogeneity. To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions, we conducted descriptive analyses instead of meta-analyses since there was only one randomised controlled trial (RCT). Results Of 2302 records identified, 41 studies were eligible for inclusion, including 39 observational studies (n = 9337), one quasi-experimental study (n = 43) and one RCT (n = 555). All but two studies were conducted in high-income countries. The uptake rates reported by included studies varied widely and the pooled uptake rate of referral was 43% (95% confidence intervals [CI] 35–50%) by a random-effect model. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses both showed that referral to on-site assessment or treatment (60%, 95% CI 51–69%) had a significantly higher uptake rate than referral to mental health service (32%, 95% CI 23–41%) (odds ratio 1.31, 95% CI 1.13–1.52). The included RCT showed that the referral intervention significantly improved the uptake rate (p < 0.01). Conclusions Almost three-fifths of women with positive screening results do not take up the referral offers after perinatal depression screening. Referral to on-site assessment and treatment may improve uptake of referral, but the quality of evidence on interventions to increase uptake was weak. More robust studies are needed, especially in low-and middle-income countries.

2014 ◽  
Vol 123 ◽  
pp. 60S ◽  
J. Jo Kim ◽  
Richard K. Silver ◽  
Laura M. La Porte ◽  
Ying Zhou ◽  
Samantha B. Allweiss ◽  

2006 ◽  
Vol 107 (2, Part 1) ◽  
pp. 342-347 ◽  
Trent E. J. Gordon ◽  
Ida A. Cardone ◽  
Jennifer J. Kim ◽  
Scott M. Gordon ◽  
Richard K. Silver

Ana Telma Pereira ◽  
Mariana Marques ◽  
Cristiana Marques ◽  
Elisabete Bento ◽  
Julieta Azevedo ◽  

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 720-729 ◽  
Magdalena Carlberg ◽  
Maigun Edhborg ◽  
Lene Lindberg

Several studies have used the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), developed to screen new mothers, also for new fathers. This study aimed to further contribute to this knowledge by comparing assessment of possible depression in fathers and associated demographic factors by the EPDS and the Gotland Male Depression Scale (GMDS), developed for “male” depression screening. The study compared EPDS score ≥10 and ≥12, corresponding to minor and major depression, respectively, in relation to GMDS score ≥13. At 3–6 months after child birth, a questionnaire was sent to 8,011 fathers of whom 3,656 (46%) responded. The detection of possibly depressed fathers by EPDS was 8.1% at score ≥12, comparable to the 8.6% detected by the GMDS. At score ≥10, the proportion detected by EPDS increased to 13.3%. Associations with possible risk factors were analyzed for fathers detected by one or both scales. A low income was associated with depression in all groups. Fathers detected by EPDS alone were at higher risk if they had three or more children, or lower education. Fathers detected by EPDS alone at score ≥10, or by both scales at EPDS score ≥12, more often were born in a foreign country. Seemingly, the EPDS and the GMDS are associated with different demographic risk factors. The EPDS score appears critical since 5% of possibly depressed fathers are excluded at EPDS cutoff 12. These results suggest that neither scale alone is sufficient for depression screening in new fathers, and that the decision of EPDS cutoff is crucial.

2010 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 814-821 ◽  
Lisa S. Segre ◽  
Rebecca L. Brock ◽  
Michael W. O’Hara ◽  
Laura L. Gorman ◽  
Jane Engeldinger

2015 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 305-309 ◽  
Karen M. Tabb ◽  
Shinwoo Choi ◽  
Maria Pineros-Leano ◽  
Brandon Meline ◽  
Hellen G. McDonald ◽  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document