Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-24hb2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T11:28:49.984Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Psychological treatment of perinatal depression: a meta-analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2021

Pim Cuijpers*
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Pamela Franco
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile Millennium Institute for Research in Depression and Personality (MIDAP), Santiago, Chile
Marketa Ciharova
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Clara Miguel
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Lisa Segre
Affiliation:
College of Nursing, University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
Soledad Quero
Affiliation:
Department of Basic, Clinical Psychology and Psychobiology, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón, Spain CIBER of Physiopathology of Obesity and Nutrition (CIBEROBN), Madrid, Spain
Eirini Karyotaki
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
*
Author for correspondence: Pim Cuijpers, E-mail: p.cuijpers@vu.nl
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Depression during pregnancy and after the birth of a child is highly prevalent and an important public health problem. Psychological interventions are the first-line treatment and, although a considerable number of randomized trials have been conducted, no recent comprehensive meta-analysis has evaluated treatment effects.

Methods

We used an existing database of randomized controlled trials of psychotherapies for adult depression and included studies aimed at perinatal depression. Random effects models were used in all analyses. We examined the effects of the interventions in the short and long term, and also examined secondary outcomes.

Results

Forty-three studies with 49 comparisons and 6270 participants between an intervention and control group were included. The overall effect size was g = 0.67 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45~0.89; numbers needed-to-be-treated = 4.39] with high heterogeneity (I2 = 80%; 95% CI 75~85). This effect size remained largely unchanged and significant in a series of sensitivity analyses, although some publication bias was found. The effects remained significant at 6–12 months follow-up. Significant effects were also found for social support, anxiety, functional limitations, parental stress and marital stress, although the number of studies for each outcome was low. All results should be considered with caution because of the high levels of heterogeneity in most analyses.

Conclusions

Psychological interventions are probably effective in the treatment of perinatal depression, with effects that last at least up to 6–12 months and probably also have effects on social support, anxiety, functional impairment, parental stress, and marital stress.

Type
Original Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Depression during pregnancy and after the birth of a child is highly prevalent and results in a considerable reduction in quality of life, social functioning (Drury, Scaramella, & Zeanah, Reference Drury, Scaramella and Zeanah2016), as well as parental and maternal functioning (Bernard, Nissim, Vaccaro, Harris, & Lindhiem, Reference Bernard, Nissim, Vaccaro, Harris and Lindhiem2018; O'Hara & McCabe, Reference O'Hara and McCabe2013). The negative consequences of perinatal depression extend to infants and children, including diminished cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and physical outcomes (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Kaaya, Chai, McCoy, Surkan, Black and Smith-Fawzi2017; O'Hara & McCabe, Reference O'Hara and McCabe2013; Stein et al., Reference Stein, Pearson, Goodman, Rapa, Rahman, McCallum and Pariante2014). Although it is not clear whether the prevalence of depression is actually more common in the postpartum period than in other periods of life (O'Hara & McCabe, Reference O'Hara and McCabe2013), one meta-analysis estimated that about one in seven women in high-income countries and one in 10 women in low-income countries are affected by perinatal depression (Woody, Ferrari, Siskind, Whiteford, & Harris, Reference Woody, Ferrari, Siskind, Whiteford and Harris2017). The effective treatment of perinatal depression is, therefore critical to public health.

Psychotherapy is recommended as the first-line approach for perinatal women with a new depression episode (O'Connor, Rossom, Henninger, Groom, & Burda, Reference O'Connor, Rossom, Henninger, Groom and Burda2016). Importantly, women generally prefer psychotherapy due to concerns about the effects of medication on their infants (Dennis & Chung-Lee, Reference Dennis and Chung-Lee2006). More than 40 randomized controlled trials have tested the effects of psychological treatments of perinatal depression and several meta-analyses have evaluated overall effects (Bledsoe & Grote, Reference Bledsoe and Grote2016; Dhillon, Sparkes, & Duarte, Reference Dhillon, Sparkes and Duarte2017). Nevertheless, no recent meta-analysis has integrated the results of all published trials. Instead, meta-analytic evaluations have included a subset of trials across a wide range of dimensions including the type of therapy (Cluxton-Keller & Bruce, Reference Cluxton-Keller and Bruce2018; Huang, Zhao, Qiang, & Fan, Reference Huang, Zhao, Qiang and Fan2018; Lever Taylor, Cavanagh, & Strauss, Reference Lever Taylor, Cavanagh and Strauss2016; Roman, Constantin, & Bostan, Reference Roman, Constantin and Bostan2020; Shortis, Warrington, & Whittaker, Reference Shortis, Warrington and Whittaker2020; Sockol, Reference Sockol2015, Reference Sockol2018), delivery modalities (Lau, Htun, Wong, Tam, & Klainin-Yobas, Reference Lau, Htun, Wong, Tam and Klainin-Yobas2017; Loughnan, Joubert, Grierson, Andrews, & Newby, Reference Loughnan, Joubert, Grierson, Andrews and Newby2019; Nair, Armfield, Chatfield, & Edirippulige, Reference Nair, Armfield, Chatfield and Edirippulige2018; Roman et al., Reference Roman, Constantin and Bostan2020; Stevenson et al., Reference Stevenson, Scope, Sutcliffe, Booth, Slade, Parry and Kalthenthaler2010; Zhou et al., Reference Zhou, Hu, Wang, Zhu, Feng, Xue and Yang2020), settings (Rahman et al., Reference Rahman, Fisher, Bower, Luchters, Tran, Yasamy and Waheed2013; Stephens, Ford, Paudyal, & Smith, Reference Stephens, Ford, Paudyal and Smith2016), and timing i.e. antenatal or postpartum period (Huang et al., Reference Huang, Yang, Lei, Yan, Tian, Huang and Lei2020; Li et al., Reference Li, Sun, Li, Sun, Wu and Duan2020a; Roman et al., Reference Roman, Constantin and Bostan2020; van Ravesteyn, Lambregtse-van den Berg, Hoogendijk, & Kamperman, Reference van Ravesteyn, Lambregtse-van den Berg, Hoogendijk and Kamperman2017). Additionally, published meta-analyses which focused on broader mental health problems in the perinatal period, such as anxiety and distress in general, resulted in unclear and incomplete effect estimates of depression treatments (Han, Guo, Ren, Duan, & Xu, Reference Han, Guo, Ren, Duan and Xu2020; Li et al., Reference Li, Liu, Wang, Liu, Zhang and Liu2020b; Song, Kim, & Ahn, Reference Song, Kim and Ahn2015). Some meta-analyses included non-randomized trials with the associated increase of uncertainty of effect estimates (Sockol, Reference Sockol2015). Finally, despite the link between maternal depression and diminished development in children, no prior meta-analyses of perinatal depression treatments have assessed whether treatment results in improved child outcomes.

With the substantial number of published clinical trials evaluating psychotherapy treatments for perinatal depression, the field has reached a critical point of having adequate statistical power to examine, not only the effect size of these treatments, but also the ability to examine secondary outcomes and potential sources of heterogeneity in subgroup analyses. A larger meta-analysis also allows to examine the relative effectiveness of different treatments, modalities, settings, and timing of treatment.

More studies also provide a more robust estimate of long-term effects, which are often understudied in psychotherapy research. In one earlier larger meta-analysis of all psychotherapies for adult depression, a relatively complete set of studies on psychotherapies in perinatal depression (N = 36) were included. However, this analysis only resulted in an overall pooled effect size (Cuijpers, Karyotaki, Reijnders, & Huibers, Reference Cuijpers, Karyotaki, Reijnders and Huibers2018a). No secondary outcomes, subgroup analyses or long-term effects of these studies were conducted.

The limitations of prior meta-analyses thus prompted a new comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing psychological treatments of perinatal depression with control groups. Here we focus not only on the overall pooled effect size of treatments for depressed women, but also on secondary outcomes in mother and child, incorporating subgroup analyses to explore the potential impact of moderators, and long-term effects.

Methods

Identification and selection of studies

The protocol for this meta-analysis was registered at the Open Science Framework (Cuijpers, Reference Cuijpers, Karyotaki, Eckshtain, Ng, Corteselli, Noma and Weisz2020b; Cuijpers & Karyotaki, Reference Cuijpers and Karyotaki2020; https://osf.io/cmk4y). We used an existing database of studies on the psychological treatment of depression. This database has been described in detail elsewhere (Cuijpers & Karyotaki, Reference Cuijpers and Karyotaki2020), and has been used in a series of earlier published meta-analyses (Cuijpers, Reference Cuijpers2017). The database is continuously updated and was developed through a comprehensive literature search (from 1966 to January 1, 2020). For this database, we searched four major bibliographical databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase and the Cochrane Library) by combining terms (both index terms and text words) indicative of depression and psychotherapies, with filters for randomized controlled trials. The full search string for one database (PubMed) is given in online Supplementary Appendix A. We also searched a number of bibliographical databases to identify trials in non-Western countries (Cuijpers, Karyotaki, Reijnders, Purgato, & Barbui, Reference Cuijpers, Karyotaki, Reijnders, Purgato and Barbui2018b), because the number of trials on psychological treatments in these countries is growing rapidly. Furthermore, we checked the references of earlier meta-analyses on psychological treatments of depression. For the current meta-analysis, we also checked the references of previous meta-analyses on the psychological treatment of perinatal depression. All records were screened by two independent researchers and all papers that could possibly meet inclusion criteria according to one of the researchers were retrieved as full-text. The decision to include or exclude a study in the database was also done by the two independent researchers, and disagreements were solved through discussion.

For the current meta-analysis, we included studies that were: (a) randomized trials (b) in which a psychological treatment (c) for perinatal depression (d) was compared with a control group (waiting list, care-as-usual, placebo, other inactive treatment). Perinatal depression was defined as depression during pregnancy (antenatal depression) and up to two years after giving birth (postpartum depression). Depression could be established with a diagnostic interview or with a score above a cut-off on a self-report measure. No language restrictions were applied.

Quality assessment and data extraction

As in our previous meta-analyses using our database of randomized trials, we assessed the validity of included studies using four criteria of the ‘Risk of bias’ assessment tool, developed by the Cochrane Collaboration (Higgins et al., Reference Higgins, Altman, Gøtzsche, Jüni, Moher, Oxman and Sterne2011). This tool assesses possible sources of bias in randomized trials, including the adequate generation of allocation sequence; the concealment of allocation to conditions; the prevention of knowledge of the allocated intervention (masking of assessors); and dealing with incomplete outcome data (this was assessed as positive when intention-to-treat analyses were conducted, meaning that all randomized patients were included in the analyses). Assessment of the validity of the included studies was conducted by two independent researchers, and disagreements were solved through discussion.

We also coded participant characteristics (depressive disorder or scoring high on a self-rating scale; antenatal, postnatal, or mixed; the age of participants); we also rated whether studies were explicitly aimed at high-risk women or not (high risk was defined as low-income and/or ethnic minority); type of therapy (according to the framework developed previously; Cuijpers, Karyotaki, de Wit, & Ebert, Reference Cuijpers, Karyotaki, de Wit and Ebert2020a; Cuijpers, van Straten, Andersson, & van Oppen, Reference Cuijpers, van Straten, Andersson and van Oppen2008) and other characteristics of the psychotherapies (treatment format; the number of sessions); and general characteristics of the studies (type of control group; the country where the study was conducted). The treatment format was coded as an individual, group or guided self-help (including internet-based guided self-help). We did not include unguided self-help, because this has been found to be less effective in the treatment of depression (Cuijpers, Noma, Karyotaki, Cipriani, & Furukawa, Reference Cuijpers, Noma, Karyotaki, Cipriani and Furukawa2019).

Outcome measures

For each comparison between psychotherapy and a control condition, the effect size indicating the difference between the two groups at post-test was calculated (Hedges' g) (Hedges & Olkin, Reference Hedges and Olkin1985). Effect sizes of 0.8 can be assumed to be large, while effect sizes of 0.5 are moderate, and effect sizes of 0.2 are small (Cohen, Reference Cohen1988). Effect sizes were calculated by subtracting (at post-test) the average score of the psychotherapy group from the average score of the control group and dividing the result by the pooled standard deviation. Because some studies had relatively small sample sizes we corrected the effect size for small sample bias (Hedges & Olkin, Reference Hedges and Olkin1985). If means and standard deviations were not reported, we used the procedures of the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (see below) to calculate the effect size using dichotomous outcomes; and if these were not available either, we used other statistics (such as t value or p value) to calculate the effect size.

In order to calculate effect sizes, we used all measures examining depressive symptoms (such as the Beck Depression Inventory/BDI (Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, & Erbaugh, Reference Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock and Erbaugh1961); the BDI-II (Beck, Steer, & Brown, Reference Beck, Steer and Brown1996); or the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression/HAMD-17 (Hamilton, Reference Hamilton1960). When one study reported more than one depression outcome measure, we pooled the effect sizes within the studies before pooling across studies. We also conducted sensitivity analyses in which we used only one depression outcome measure from each study, based on an algorithm that we used in a previous meta-analysis on psychotherapies for depression, giving priority to the HAM-D-17, the BDI, the BDI-II, another clinician-rated instrument and another self-report instrument (Cuijpers et al., Reference Cuijpers, Karyotaki, Eckshtain, Ng, Corteselli, Noma and Weisz2020b). Effect sizes were calculated using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (version 3.3070; CMA).

We also extracted secondary outcomes, like the quality of life, social support, functional limitations and child outcomes. We checked in the included studies which secondary outcomes were included and reported, and if 5 or more studies reported on the same outcome, this outcome was included in the meta-analysis. For definitions and operationalizations of secondary outcomes, we used previous meta-analyses of our database on quality of life (Kolovos, Kleiboer, & Cuijpers, Reference Kolovos, Kleiboer and Cuijpers2016), functional limitations (Renner, Cuijpers, & Huibers, Reference Renner, Cuijpers and Huibers2014), social support (Park, Cuijpers, van Straten, & Reynolds, Reference Park, Cuijpers, van Straten and Reynolds2014), and child outcomes (Cuijpers, Weitz, Karyotaki, Garber, & Andersson, Reference Cuijpers, Weitz, Karyotaki, Garber and Andersson2015).

Meta-analyses

We pooled the effect sizes using the ‘meta’ and ‘metafor’ packages in R, and ran all analyses in R studio, version 1.1.463, for Mac (the R Foundation). Because we expected considerable heterogeneity among the studies, we employed a random-effects pooling model in all analyses. We pooled the effect sizes using the inverse variance method, with the Hartung-Knapp adjustment for the random-effects model. We calculated the I2 statistic and its 95% confidence interval (CI) to estimate heterogeneity (Higgins, Thompson, Deeks, & Altman, Reference Higgins, Thompson, Deeks and Altman2003). A value of 0% indicates no observed heterogeneity, and larger values indicate increasing heterogeneity, with 25% as low, 50% as moderate, and 75% as high heterogeneity. In addition, we calculated the prediction interval. Because the 95% CI of the effect size does not indicate how the true effects found in studies are distributed, we added the prediction interval which indicates the range in which the true effect size of 95% of all populations will fall (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, Reference Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins and Rothstein2009; Borenstein, Higgins, Hedges, & Rothstein, Reference Borenstein, Higgins, Hedges and Rothstein2017).

Numbers needed-to-be-treated (NNT) for depression outcomes were calculated using the formulae provided by Furukawa (Reference Furukawa1999). The NNT is the inverse of the risk difference between the treatment and control group (Laupacis, Sackett, & Roberts, Reference Laupacis, Sackett and Roberts1988), based on a binary outcome. The NNT can be estimated with a continuous outcome, especially if the proportion of a binary outcome is known. In our calculation, we conservatively set the proportion of the outcome at 19% for the control group (based on the pooled response rate of 50% reduction of symptoms across trials in psychotherapy for depression) (Cuijpers et al., Reference Cuijpers, Karyotaki, Weitz, Andersson, Hollon and van Straten2014). We did not calculate NNTs for other outcomes, because the control group's outcome rates were unknown.

We tested for publication bias by inspecting the funnel plot on primary outcome measures and by Duval and Tweedie's trim and fill procedure (Duval & Tweedie, Reference Duval and Tweedie2000) as implemented in CMA, which yields an estimate of the effect size after the publication bias has been taken into account. We also conducted Egger's test of the intercept to quantify the bias captured by the funnel plot and to test whether it was significant. Studies were considered to be outliers when the 95% confidence interval of the effect size did not overlap with the pooled effect size.

We conducted subgroup analyses according to the mixed-effects model, in which effect sizes within subgroups are pooled according to the random-effects model and differences between subgroups are tested with a fixed-effects model. We conducted bivariate meta-regression analyses to examine the association between the effect size and continuous outcomes.

We conducted sensitivity analyses in which we included only studies with a low risk of bias, and analyses in which the alternative way of calculating effect sizes was used. We also calculated the relative risk (RR) of dropping out from the study (for any reason) in the intervention groups compared with the control groups.

Results

Selection and inclusion of studies

After examining a total of 24 771 records (18 217 after removal of duplicates), we retrieved 2914 full-text papers for further consideration. We excluded 2871 of the retrieved papers. The PRISMA flowchart describing the inclusion process, including the reasons for exclusion, is presented in Fig. 1. A total of 43 randomized controlled trials (with 49 comparisons between psychotherapy and a control group) with 6270 participants (3158 in the treatment groups and 3112 in the control groups) met inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis.

Fig. 1. Flowchart on the selection of studies.

Characteristics of included studies

A summary of key characteristics of the included studies is presented in Table 1. Eighteen of the 43 studies were aimed at pregnant women, 24 at women with postpartum depression and one was aimed at a mixed population. Eight studies were specifically aimed at high-risk women. The mean age of the women in the study populations ranged from 21.9 to 32.2 years (median 29.2; three studies did not report the mean age). In 22 studies women had to meet diagnostic criteria for a depressive disorder to participate, in 21 studies women had to score above the cut-off of a self-rating depression measure.

Table 1. Selected characteristics of included studies

Abbreviations (alphabetical): –, unclear of high risk of bias; +, low risk of bias; 3rd, third-wave therapies; ac, allocation concealment; AUS, Australia; ba, blinded assessment; bat, behavioral activation therapy; CAN, Canada; CAU, care-as-usual; cbt, cognitive behavior therapy; dyn, psychodynamic therapy; East As, East Asia; EU, Europe; grp, group therapy; HR, high-risk; ind, individual therapy; ipt, interpersonal psychotherapy; ITT, intention-to-treat analyses; M age, mean age; N ctr, number of participants in control condition; N psy, number of participants in therapy condition; N sess, number of sessions; N, no; NR, not reported; sg, sequence generation; sr, self-report; sup, supportive therapy; US, United States; WL, waiting list; Y, yes.

a Nurse-led.

b Psychologist-led.

In the 43 studies, 49 psychological interventions were compared with a control group. Twenty-four of these were cognitive behavior therapy, seven were interpersonal psychotherapy, seven were supportive counseling, and 10 were other therapies. Twenty-four of the 49 interventions used an individual format, 15 a group format, three internet-based guided self-help, and seven used a mixed or another format. Thirty-six interventions had between 6 and 12 sessions, seven had fewer sessions, and six had more sessions (range 2–21).

A total of 33 studies used a care-as-usual as a control group, five used a waiting list and the other five studies used another control group. Thirteen studies were conducted in North America, 10 in Europe, six in Australia, six in East Asia and eight in other countries.

The risk of bias in many studies was considerable. Twenty-six of the 43 studies reported an adequate sequence generation (61%). Twenty-two reported allocation to conditions by an independent (third) party (51%). Eight studies reported using blinded outcome assessors (19%), and 30 used only self-report outcomes (70%). In 22 studies intent-to-treat analyses were conducted (51%). Fourteen of the 43 studies (33%) met all quality criteria, 15 studies (35%) met two or three of the criteria and the 14 remaining studies met no or only one criterion (33%).

Overall effects of psychological treatments of perinatal depression

The mean effect size of all 49 comparisons of psychotherapy with a control group was g = 0.67 (95% CI 0.45~0.89), which corresponds with an NNT of 4.39. Heterogeneity was very high (I2 = 80%; 95% CI 75~85), and the prediction interval ranged from −0.82 to 2.16. The data of these analyses are presented in Table 2 and Fig. 2 gives the forest plot.

Fig. 2. Forest plot of studies comparing psychotherapy for perinatal depression with control conditions: Hedges' g.

Table 2. Effects of psychological treatments of perinatal depression: Hedges' g a

Abbreviations: CBT, cognitive behavior therapy; CI, confidence interval; ES, effect size; FU, follow-up; IPT, interpersonal psychotherapy; N comp, number of comparisons; NNT, numbers-needed-to-be-treated.

a According to a random effects model.

c The 95% CI of I2 and the prediction interval cannot be calculated when the number of studies is less than 3.

There were two studies in which two psychological treatments were compared with the same control group, and two more studies in which three interventions were compared with the same control group. These effect sizes are not independent of each other and may artificially reduce heterogeneity and affect the effect size. Therefore, we conducted two sensitivity analyses, one in which we only included the largest of the two effect sizes from these five studies, and another one in which we included only the smallest effect size. As can be seen in Table 2, these analyses did not point at major differences of the effect sizes or the level of heterogeneity.

After removal of six outliers (the confidence interval of the effect size did not overlap with the pooled effect size; Table 2), the effect size dropped somewhat (g = 0.56; 95%: 0.46−0.66), and heterogeneity dropped considerably, but remained moderately high (I2 = 48; 95% CI 25−63). The 17 studies with a low risk of bias resulted in a somewhat higher effect size (g = 0.87; 95% CI 0.20~1.54), but heterogeneity was still very high (I2 = 87; 95% CI 81–91). We found some indications for significant publication bias. Egger's test was not significant (p = 0.33), but Duval and Tweedie's trim and fill procedure identified four missing studies. After adjustment for these missing studies, the effect size dropped to g = 0.53 (95% CI 0.24–0.82). The funnel plot is presented in online Supplementary Appendix B.

The effect sizes found for specific outcome questionnaires ranged from g = 0.45 (95% CI 0.30–0.59) for the EPDS to g = 1.14 (95% CI 0.08–2.20) for the BDI-II. The mean differences between treatment and control groups, indicating the exact number of points on the scales, were 2.15 for the EPDS, 4.82 for the HAMD, 7.04 for the BDI-II and 8.32 for the BDI.

Subgroup analyses, long-term outcomes and acceptability

We conducted a series of subgroup analyses (Table 2). We did not find a significant difference between the effect sizes found for period (antenatal, postnatal, mixed), high-risk group v. no high-risk group, type of therapy, country where the study was conducted or higher v. lower risk of bias. We did find that studies in which participants had to meet diagnostic criteria for a depressive disorder had larger effect sizes than studies in which participants scored above a cut-off on a self-rating scale (p < 0.05). We also found a differential effect size for different treatment formats, where a mixed-format had the lowest effects (p = 0.02), and we found that type of control group was associated with the effect size, with waiting lists resulting in the largest effect sizes. Heterogeneity remained high in all subgroups with a substantial number of studies.

Fourteen studies reported outcomes at 6 months or longer follow-up. The results are summarized in Table 2. When we took from each study the effect size that was closest to 12 months follow-up, the pooled effect size was g = 0.40 (95% CI 0.17–0.63), with high heterogeneity (I2 = 76; 95% CI 60–86). When we limited that to the follow-up measures between 6 and 12 months, the effect size was very comparable (g = 0.41). Four studies reported effect sizes at follow-up between 13 and 24 months, but this was not significant. Two studies reported effect sizes longer than 24 months, but we did not pool these. The sensitivity analyses with long-term outcomes were very comparable to the main results (Table 2).

We could calculate study drop-out for psychotherapy and control conditions in 43 comparisons, but we found no indication for a differential drop-out rate in treatment or control groups (RR = 1.11; 95% CI 0.86–1.42; p = 0.41).

Effects of psychotherapies for perinatal depression on other outcomes

The effects of psychotherapies for perinatal depression on other outcomes are reported in Table 3. Forest plots and funnel plots for the secondary outcomes are given in online Supplementary Appendix C. We found significant effects of treatment on social support (g = 0.41; 95% CI 0.10–0.72). However, after adjustment for publication bias, these results were no longer significant, and the studies with low-risk bias also did not show positive effects.

Table 3. Effects of psychological treatments of perinatal depression on other outcomes: Hedges' ga, b, c, d

a According to a random-effects model.

b This sample of studies did not include studies with a low risk of bias.

c The two outliers in the main analyses were excluded (Hsu et al., Reference Hsu and Wang2009; Tsai et al., Reference Tsai, Wong, Tsai and Ku2008).

d The 95% CI of I 2 and the prediction interval cannot be calculated when the number of studies is less than 3

Underlined values are significant (p<0.05)

We also found significant effects on anxiety (g = 0.71; 95% CI 0.08–1.34), which remained significant when outliers were excluded and when only studies with low risk of bias were included. However, after adjustment for publication bias only a moderate, non-significant effect size remained.

We also found significant effects for functional impairment, parental stress and marital stress, also after adjustment for publication bias. Unfortunately, there were not enough studies with a low risk of bias to validate the robustness of these results in high-quality research.

No significant effects were found on the weight and height of the children.

Discussion

We conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of all randomized trials examining the effects of psychological interventions for perinatal depression compared to control conditions and also included important secondary outcomes, outcomes at follow-up, as well as child outcomes. We found that the effects of the interventions on depression were moderate to large, and they remained significant after a series of sensitivity analyses. There was some publication bias, but after adjustment for that, the effects were somewhat smaller, but still significant. These effects remained significant at one-year follow-up, although the number of studies with a low risk of bias was small at follow-up, so these results should be considered with caution.

One major problem was the very high level of heterogeneity in most analyses. This means that the effect sizes of the included studies do not point in the same direction. We found several important outliers with effect sizes that are so large that they lack credibility. But even after excluding these extreme outliers, the level of heterogeneity remained considerable. Subgroup analyses pointed at some significant differences between samples of studies. It is known from other meta-analytic research that the type of control group is associated with differential effect sizes (Cuijpers, Quero, Papola, Cristea, & Karyotaki, Reference Cuijpers, Quero, Papola, Cristea and Karyotaki2021), and that was confirmed in this study. But we also found that treatment format may be related to the effect size, which is not confirmed in other meta-analytic research (Cuijpers et al., Reference Cuijpers, Noma, Karyotaki, Cipriani and Furukawa2019). The same is true for the differential effects of studies in women with a diagnosed mood disorder compared to a score above the cut-off of a self-report depression measure. This has also not been confirmed in other meta-analytic research (Cuijpers, Karyotaki, Reijnders, & Huibers, Reference Cuijpers, Karyotaki, Reijnders and Huibers2018a). However, the number of studies in subgroups was relatively small, and may very well be chance findings, because moderator analyses need large sample sizes, especially when heterogeneity is high (Hempel et al., Reference Hempel, Miles, Booth, Wang, Morton and Sheke2013). Because the p values are not that convincing, and because of potential confounding, these results should be considered with caution.

Apart from the effects on depression, we found indications that the interventions also had positive effects on social support, anxiety, functional limitations, parental stress and marital stress. This is encouraging and is in line with a growing body of research showing that psychological interventions affect not only depression, but also have positive effects on a range of secondary outcomes (Cuijpers, Reference Cuijpers2020a, Reference Cuijpers2020b). These results should, however, also be considered with caution because of the risk for publication bias and because each of the outcomes was only examined in relatively small samples of studies, most of which did not meet the criteria for high quality.

We could include a considerable number of studies in high-risk women, with low incomes or from minority groups. It was encouraging to find that the effects of the interventions did not differ for studies in these groups compared to the effects found in other groups.

The results of this meta-analysis are in line with the results of previous meta-analyses, which mostly focused on subsamples of studies, and resulted in very uncertain outcomes. The current meta-analysis indicated more robust and precise outcomes, although the results remained problematic because of the high level of heterogeneity, publication bias, and the low quality of many included trials.

This study has important implications. First of all, it confirms that psychological treatments should be first-line treatments of perinatal depression. These treatments are effective, also in the longer term. Furthermore, they do not only affect depression, but also important secondary outcomes, such as anxiety, social support, functional impairment, parental stress and marital stress. However, the high heterogeneity also indicates that the effect of treatments vary considerably across studies and it is not clear what the causes are of these differences. This means that more and better research is needed to examine who benefits from which treatment under which conditions. One of the causes of the heterogeneity is certainly the fact that many different outcome measures are used and standardization of outcome measures across studies is certainly recommended.

The strengths of the current study include the incorporation of trials spanning the entire perinatal period, the evaluation of other outcomes than depression alone, child outcomes, follow-up outcomes, and state-of-the-art meta-analytic approaches. However, there are also several important limitations that have to be mentioned. We already mentioned the high level of heterogeneity, publication bias, and the low quality of many included trials. In addition to that, it is important to mention that the secondary outcomes were not very consistent across trials, and it would be good if researchers would find some consensus on what secondary outcomes are relevant and should be included in trials. We also included only a limited number of studies reporting longer-term outcomes. The effects in the longer term are highly relevant from a clinical and public health perspective.

Despite these limitations, we can conclude that psychological interventions are effective in the treatment of perinatal depression, with effects that last at least up to 6–12 months and probably also has effects on social support, anxiety, functional impairment, parental stress and marital stress.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291721004529

Financial support

The contribution of Dr Quero to this study was supported by CIBEROBN, an initiative of the ISCIII (ISC III CB06 03/0052). Pamela Franco received funding from the Chilean National Agency for Research and Development (ANID) / Scholarship Program / DOCTORADO NACIONAL/ 2019–21190745. The other authors received no financial support for this study.

Conflict of interests

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

The notes appear after the main text.

* References marked with an (*) are included in the meta-analysis.

References

References†*

* Ammerman, R. T., Putnam, F. W., Altaye, M., Stevens, J., Teeters, A. R., & Van Ginkel, J. B. (2013). A clinical trial of in-home CBT for depressed mothers in home visitation. Behavior Therapy, 44, 359372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). BDI-II. Beck depression inventory second edition: Manual. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J., & Erbaugh, J. (1961). An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4(6), 561571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bernard, K., Nissim, G., Vaccaro, S., Harris, J. L., & Lindhiem, O. (2018). Association between maternal depression and maternal sensitivity from birth to 12 months: A meta-analysis. Attachment & Human Development, 20, 578599.Google ScholarPubMed
Bledsoe, S. E., & Grote, N. K. (2016). Treating depression during pregnancy and the postpartum: A preliminary meta-analysis. Research on Social Work Practice, 16, 109120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borenstein, M., Higgins, J. P. T., Hedges, L. V., & Rothstein, H. R. (2017). Basics of meta-analysis: I2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity. Research Synthesis Methods, 8, 518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, A., O'mahen, H., Baxter, H., Bennert, K., Wiles, N., Ramchandani, P., … Evans, J.. (2013). A pilot randomised controlled trial of cognitive behavioural therapy for antenatal depression. BMC Psychiatry, 13, 33.Google ScholarPubMed
* Chen, C. H., Tseng, Y. F., Chou, F. H., & Wang, S. Y. (2000). Effects of support group intervention in postnatally distressed women. A controlled study in Taiwan. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 49, 395399.Google ScholarPubMed
* Cho, H. J., Kwon, J. H., & Lee, J. J. (2008). Antenatal cognitive-behavioral therapy for prevention of postpartum depression: A pilot study. Yonsei Medical Journal, 49, 553562.Google ScholarPubMed
* Clark, R., Tluczek, A., & Brown, R. (2008). A mother–infant therapy group model for postpartum depression. Infant Mental Health Journal, 29, 514536.Google ScholarPubMed
* Clark, R., Tluczek, A., & Wenzel, A. (2003). Psychotherapy for postpartum depression: A preliminary report. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 73, 441454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cluxton-Keller, F., & Bruce, M. L. (2018). Clinical effectiveness of family therapeutic interventions in the prevention and treatment of perinatal depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One, 13, e0198730.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
* Cooper, P. J., Murray, L., Wilson, A., & Romaniuk, H. (2003). Controlled trial of the short- and long-term effect of psychological treatment of post-partum depression. I. Impact on maternal mood. British Journal of Psychiatry, 182, 412419.Google Scholar
Cuijpers, P. (2017). Four decades of outcome research on psychotherapies for adult depression: An overview of a series of meta-analyses. Canadian Psychology, 58, 719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuijpers, P. (2020a). Measuring success in the treatment of depression: What is most important to patients? Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics, 20, 123125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cuijpers, P. (2020b). Psychological treatment of perinatal depression: A meta-analysis. Retrieved from osf.io/cmk4y.Google Scholar
Cuijpers, P., & Karyotaki, E. (2020). A meta-analytic database of randomised trials on psychotherapies for depression. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/825C6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuijpers, P., Karyotaki, E., de Wit, L., & Ebert, D. D. (2020a). The effects of fifteen evidence-supported therapies for adult depression: A meta-analytic review. Psychotherapy Research, 30, 279293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cuijpers, P., Karyotaki, E., Eckshtain, D., Ng, M. Y., Corteselli, K. A., Noma, H., … Weisz, J. R. (2020b). Psychotherapy for depression across different age groups: A meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry, 77(7), 694702.Google Scholar
Cuijpers, P., Karyotaki, E., Reijnders, M., & Huibers, M. J. H. (2018a). Who benefits from psychotherapies for adult depression? A meta-analytic update of the evidence. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 47(2), 91106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cuijpers, P., Karyotaki, E., Reijnders, M., Purgato, M., & Barbui, C. (2018b). Psychotherapies for depression in low- and middle-income countries: A meta-analysis. World Psychiatry, 17, 90101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cuijpers, P., Karyotaki, E., Weitz, E., Andersson, G., Hollon, S. D., & van Straten, A. (2014). The effects of psychotherapies for major depression in adults on remission, recovery and improvement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 159, 118126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cuijpers, P., Noma, H., Karyotaki, E., Cipriani, A., & Furukawa, T. (2019). Individual, group, telephone, self-help and internet-based cognitive behavior therapy for adult depression; A network meta-analysis of delivery methods. JAMA Psychiatry, 76, 700707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuijpers, P., Noma, H., Karyotaki, E., Vinkers, C. H., Cipriani, A., & Furukawa, T. A. (2020b). A network meta-analysis of the effects of psychotherapies, pharmacotherapies and their combination in the treatment of adult depression. World Psychiatry, 19, 92107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cuijpers, P., Quero, S., Papola, D., Cristea, I.A., & Karyotaki, E. (2021). Care-as-usual control groups across different settings in randomised trials on psychotherapy for adult depression: A meta-analysis. Psychological Medicine, 51(4), 634644.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cuijpers, P., van Straten, A., Andersson, G., & van Oppen, P. (2008). Psychotherapy for depression in adults: A meta-analysis of comparative outcome studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 909922.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cuijpers, P., Weitz, E., Karyotaki, E., Garber, J., & Andersson, G. (2015). The effects of psychological treatment of maternal depression on children and parental functioning: A meta-analysis. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 24, 237245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dennis, C. L., & Chung-Lee, L. (2006). Postpartum depression help-seeking barriers and maternal treatment preferences: A qualitative systematic review. Birth (Berkeley, Calif ), 33, 323331.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dhillon, A., Sparkes, E., & Duarte, R. V. (2017). Mindfulness-Based interventions during pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Mindfulness, 8, 14211437.Google ScholarPubMed
* Dimidjian, S., Goodman, S., Sherwood, N., Simon, G., Ludman, E., Gallop, R. (2017). A pragmatic randomized clinical trial of behavioral activation for depressed pregnant women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 85(1), 2636.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drury, S. S., Scaramella, L., & Zeanah, C. H. (2016). The neurobiological impact of postpartum maternal depression: Prevention and intervention approaches. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 25(2), 179200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455463.Google ScholarPubMed
* Forsell, E., Bendix, M., Holländare, F. (2017) Internet-delivered cognitive behavior therapy for antenatal depression: A randomised controlled trial. Journal of Affective Disorders, 221, 5664.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
* Fuhr, D. C., Weobong, B., Lazarus, A., Vanobberghen, F., Weiss, H. A., Singla, D. R., ... Patel, V. (2019). Delivering the thinking healthy programme for perinatal depression through peers: An individually randomised controlled trial in India. The Lancet. Psychiatry, 6, 115127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Furukawa, T. A. (1999). From effect size into number needed to treat. Lancet (London, England), 353, 1680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
* Goodman, J. H., Prager, J., Goldstein, R., & Freeman, M. (2015). Perinatal dyadic psychotherapy for postpartum depression: A randomized controlled pilot trial. Archives of Women's Mental Health, 18(3), 493506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
* Grote, N. K., Swartz, H. A., Geibel, S. L., Zuckoff, A., Houck, P. R., & Frank, E. (2009). A randomized controlled trial of culturally relevant, brief interpersonal psychotherapy for perinatal depression. Psychiatric Services, 60, 313321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamilton, M. (1960). A rating scale for depression. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 23(1), 5662.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Han, Q., Guo, M., Ren, F., Duan, D., & Xu, X. (2020). Role of midwife-supported psychotherapy on antenatal depression, anxiety and maternal health: A meta-analysis and literature review. Experimental Therapies in Medicine, 20, 25992610.Google ScholarPubMed
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hempel, S., Miles, J. N. V., Booth, M. J., Wang, Z., Morton, S. C., & Sheke, P. G. (2013). Risk of bias: A simulation study of power to detect study-level moderator effects in meta-analysis. Systematic Reviews, 2, 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Jüni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., … Sterne, J. A. C. (2011). The Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 343, d5928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 327(7414), 557560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
* Holden, J. M., Sagovsky, R., & Cox, J. L. (1989). Counselling in a general practice setting: Controlled study of health visitor intervention in treatment of postnatal depression. British Medical Journal, 298(6668), 223226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
* Honey, K. L., Bennett, P., & Morgan, M. (2002). A brief psycho-educational group intervention for postnatal depression. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41(4), 405409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
* Hou, Y., Hu, P., Zhang, Y., Lu, Q., Wang, D., Yin, L. (2014). Cognitive-behavioral therapy in combination with systemic family therapy improves mild to moderate postpartum depression. Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, 36(1), 4752.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hsu, Y. C., & Wang, J. J. (2009). Physical, affective, and behavioral effects of group reminiscence on depressed institutionalized elders in Taiwan. Nurs Res, 58(4), 294299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, L., Zhao, Y., Qiang, C., & Fan, B. (2018). Is cognitive-behavioral therapy a better choice for women with postnatal depression? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One, 13(10), e0205243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, R., Yang, D., Lei, B., Yan, C., Tian, Y., Huang, X., & Lei, J. (2020). The short- and long-term effectiveness of mother-infant psychotherapy on postpartum depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 260, 670679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
* Husain, N., Zulqernain, F., Carter, L.-A., Chaudhry, I., Fatima, B., Kiran, T. (2017). Treatment of maternal depression in urban slums of Karachi, Pakistan: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of an integrated maternal psychological and early child development intervention. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 29, 6370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
* Jesse, D. E., Gaynes, B. N., Feldhousen, E. B., Newton, E. R., Bunch, S., & Hollon, S. D. (2015). Performance of a culturally tailored cognitive-behavioural intervention integrated in a public health setting to reduce risk of antepartum depression: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Midwifery and Women's Health, 60(5), 578592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
* Jiang, L., Wang, Z. Z., Qiu, L. R., Wan, G. B., Lin, Y., & Wei, Z. (2014). Psychological intervention for postpartum depression. Journal of Huazhong University of Science and Technology: Medical sciences, 34(3), 437442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolovos, S., Kleiboer, A., & Cuijpers, P. (2016). The effect of psychotherapy for depression on quality of life: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Psychiatry, 209, 460468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, Y., Htun, T. P., Wong, S. N., Tam, W. S. W., & Klainin-Yobas, P. (2017). Therapist-Supported internet-based cognitive behavior therapy for stress, anxiety, and depressive symptoms Among postpartum women: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(4), e138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laupacis, A., Sackett, D. L., & Roberts, R. S. (1988). An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. New England Journal of Medicine, 318, 17281733.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lenze, S., & Potts, M. (2017). Brief interpersonal psychotherapy for depression during pregnancy in a low-income population: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Affective Disorders, 210, 151157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
* Leung, S., Lee, A., Wong, D., Wong, C., Leung, K., Chiang, V., ... Chung, K. F., (2016). A brief group intervention using a cognitive-behavioural approach to reduce postnatal depressive symptoms: A randomised controlled trial. Hong Kong Medical Journal, 22(1), 48.Google ScholarPubMed
* Leung, S. S., Lee, A. M., Chiang, V. C., Lam, S. K., Kuen, Y. W., & Wong, D. F. (2013). Culturally sensitive, preventive antenatal group cognitive-behavioural therapy for Chinese women with depression. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 19(Supp 1), 2837.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lever Taylor, B., Cavanagh, K., & Strauss, C. (2016). The effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions in the perinatal period: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One, 11(5), e0155720.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, C., Sun, X., Li, Q., Sun, Q., Wu, B., & Duan, D. (2020a). Role of psychotherapy on antenatal depression, anxiety, and maternal quality of life: A meta-analysis. Medicine, 99(27), e20947.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, Z., Liu, Y., Wang, J., Liu, J., Zhang, C., & Liu, Y. (2020b). Effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy for perinatal depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 29(17–18), 31703182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, Y., Kaaya, S., Chai, J., McCoy, D., Surkan, P., Black, M., ... Smith-Fawzi, M. C. (2017). Maternal depressive symptoms and early childhood cognitive development: A meta-analysis. Psychological Medicine, 47(4), 680689.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loughnan, S. A., Joubert, A. E., Grierson, A., Andrews, G., & Newby, J. M. (2019). Internet-delivered psychological interventions for clinical anxiety and depression in perinatal women: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of Womens Mental Health, 22, 737750.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
* Lund, C., Schneider, M., Garman, E. C., Davies, T., Munodawafa, M., Honikman, S., ... Susser, E. (2020). Task-sharing of psychological treatment for antenatal depression in Khayelitsha, South Africa: Effects on antenatal and postnatal outcomes in an individual randomised controlled trial. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 130, 103466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
* McKee, M. D., Zayas, L. H., Fletcher, J., Boyd, R. C., & Nam, S. H. (2006). Results of an intervention to reduce perinatal depression among low-income minority women in community primary care. Journal of Social Service Research, 32(4), 6381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
* Milgrom, J., Danaher, B. G., Gemmill, A. W., Holt, C., Holt, C. J., Seeley, J. R., … Ericksen, J. (2016). Internet cognitive behavioral therapy for women with postnatal depression: A randomized controlled trial of MummoodBooster. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(3), e54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
* Milgrom, J., Gemmill, A. W., Ericksen, J., Burrows, G., Buist, A., & Reece, J. (2015). Treatment of postnatal depression with cognitive behavioural therapy, sertraline and combination therapy: A randomised controlled trial. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 49(3), 236245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
* Milgrom, J., Holt, C. J., Gemmill, A. W., Ericksen, J., Leigh, B., Buist, A., &Schembri, C. (2011). Treating postnatal depressive symptoms in primary care: A randomised controlled trial of GP management, with and without adjunctive counselling. BMC Psychiatry, 11, 95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
* Milgrom, J., Negri, L. M., Gemmill, A. W., McNeil, M., & Martin, P. R. (2005). A randomized controlled trial of psychological interventions for postnatal depression. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(4), 529542.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrell, C. J., Slade, P., Warner, R., Paley, G., Dixon, S., Walters, S. J., … Nicholl, J. (2009). Clinical effectiveness of health visitor training in psychologically informed approaches for depression in postnatal women: Pragmatic cluster randomised trial in primary care. British Medical Journal, 338, a3045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
* Mulcahy, R., Reay, R. E., Wilkinson, R. B., & Owen, C. (2010). A randomised control trial for the effectiveness of group interpersonal psychotherapy for postnatal depression. Archives of Women's Mental Health, 13(2), 125139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nair, U., Armfield, N. R., Chatfield, M. D., & Edirippulige, S. (2018). The effectiveness of telemedicine intervetnions to address maternal depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 24, 639650.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
* Ngai, F. W., Wong, P. C., Leung, K. Y., Chau, P. H., & Chung, K. F. (2015). The effect of telephone-based cognitive-behavioral therapy on postnatal depression: A randomized controlled trial. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 84(5), 294303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Connor, E., Rossom, R. C., Henninger, M., Groom, H. C., & Burda, B. U. (2016). Primary care screening for and treatment of depression in pregnant and postpartum women; evidence report and systematic review for the US preventive services task force. JAMA, 315(4), 388406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Hara, M. W., & McCabe, J. E. (2013). Postpartum depression: Current status and future directions. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 379407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
* O'Hara, M. W., Stuart, S., Gorman, L. L., & Wenzel, A. (2000). Efficacy of interpersonal psychotherapy for postpartum depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57(11), 10391045.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
* O'Mahen, H., Himle, J. A., Fedock, G., Henshaw, E., & Flynn, H. (2013). A pilot randomized controlled trial of cognitive-behavioral therapy for perinatal depression adapted for women with low incomes. Depression and Anxiety, 30(7), 679687.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Park, M., Cuijpers, P., van Straten, A., & Reynolds, C. F. (2014). The effects of psychological treatments of adult depression on social support: A meta-analysis. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 38, 600611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
* Prendergast, J., & Austin, M. P. (2001). Early childhood nurse-delivered cognitive behavioural counselling for post-natal depression. Australasian Psychiatry, 9(3), 255259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
* Puckering, C., McIntosh, E., Hickey, A., & Longford, J. (2010). Mellow babies: A group intervention for infants and mothers experiencing postnatal depression. Counselling Psychology Review, 25(1), 2838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
* Pugh, N. E., Hadjistavropoulos, H. D., & Dirkse, D. (2016). A randomised controlled trial of therapist-assisted, internet-delivered cognitive behavior therapy for women with maternal depression. PLoS One, 11(3), e0149186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rahman, A., Fisher, J., Bower, P., Luchters, S., Tran, T., Yasamy, T., … Waheed, W. (2013). Interventions for common perinatal mental disorders in women in low and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 91, 593601.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
* Rahman, A., Malik, A., Sikander, S., Roberts, C., & Creed, F. (2008). Cognitive behaviour therapy-based intervention by community health workers for mothers with depression and their infants in rural Pakistan: A cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet (London, England), 372(9642), 902909.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Renner, F., Cuijpers, P., & Huibers, M. J. (2014). The effect of psychotherapy for depression on improvements in social functioning: A meta-analysis. Psychological Medicine, 44(14), 29132926.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roman, M., Constantin, T., & Bostan, C. M. (2020). The efficiency of online cognitive-behavioral therapy for postpartum depressive symptomatology: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Women & Health, 60(1), 99112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shortis, E., Warrington, D., & Whittaker, P. (2020). The efficacy of cognitive behavioural therapy for the treatment of antenatal depression: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 272, 485495.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
* Sikander, S., Ahmad, I., Atif, N., Zaidi, A., Vanobberghen, F., Weiss, H. A., ... Rahman, A. (2019). Delivering the thinking healthy programme for perinatal depression through volunteer peers: A cluster randomised controlled trial in Pakistan. The Lancet. Psychiatry, 6(2), 128139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sockol, L. E. (2015). A systematic review of the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy for treating and preventing perinatal depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 177, 721.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sockol, L. E. (2018). A systematic review and meta-analysis of interpersonal psychotherapy for perinatal women. Journal of Affective Disorders, 232, 316328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Song, J. E., Kim, T., & Ahn, J. A. (2015). A systematic review of psychosocial interventions for women with postpartum stress. Journal of Obstetrics Gynecolology Neonatal Nursing, 44(2), 183192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
* Spinelli, M. G., & Endicott, J. (2003). Controlled clinical trial of interpersonal psychotherapy versus parenting education program for depressed pregnant women. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160(3), 555562.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
* Spinelli, M. G., Endicott, J., Leon, A. C., Goetz, R. R., Kalish, R. B., Brustman, L. E., ... Schulick, J. L. (2012). A controlled clinical treatment trial of interpersonal psychotherapy for depressed pregnant women at 3 New York city sites. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 74(4), 393399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, A., Pearson, R. M., Goodman, S. H., Rapa, E., Rahman, A., McCallum, M., … Pariante, C. M. (2014). Effects of perinatal mental disorders on the fetus and child. Lancet (London, England), 384, 18001819.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stephens, S., Ford, E., Paudyal, P., & Smith, H. (2016). Effectiveness of psychological interventions for postnatal depression in primary care: A meta-analysis. Annals of Family Medicine, 14(5), 463472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stevenson, M. D., Scope, A., Sutcliffe, P. A., Booth, A., Slade, P., Parry, G., … Kalthenthaler, E. (2010). Group cognitive behavioural therapy for postnatal depression: A systematic review of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and value of information analyses. Health Technology Assessment, 14(44), 1107, iii-iv.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tsai, Y. F., Wong, T. K. S., Tsai, H. H., & Ku, Y. C. (2008). Self-worth therapy for depressive symptoms in older nursing home residents. J Adv Nurs, 64(5), 488494.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Ravesteyn, L. M., Lambregtse-van den Berg, M. P., Hoogendijk, W. J., & Kamperman, A. M. (2017). Interventions to treat mental disorders during pregnancy: A systematic review and multiple treatment meta-analysis. PLoS One, 12(3), e0173397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
* Wickberg, B., & Hwang, C. P. (1996). Counselling of postnatal depression: A controlled study on a population-based Swedish sample. Journal of Affective Disorders, 39(3), 209216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
* Wiklund, I., Mohlkert, P., & Edman, G. (2010). Evaluation of a brief cognitive intervention in patients with signs of postnatal depression: A randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 89(8), 11001104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woody, C. A., Ferrari, A. J., Siskind, D. J., Whiteford, H. A., & Harris, M. G. (2017). A systematic review and meta-regression of the prevalence and incidence of perinatal depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 219, 8692.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
* Zemestani, M., Davoodi, I., Honarmand, M. M., Zargar, Y., & Ottaviani, C. (2016). Comparative effects of group metacognitive therapy versus behavioural activation in moderately depressed students. Journal of Mental Health, 25(6), 479485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
* Zhao, Y., Munro-Kramer, M. L., Shi, S., Wang, J., & Zhao, Q. (2019). Effects of antenatal depression screening and intervention among Chinese high-risk pregnant women with medically defined complications: A randomized controlled trial. Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 13(5), 10901098.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhou, C., Hu, H., Wang, C., Zhu, Z., Feng, G., Xue, J., & Yang, Z. (2020). The effectiveness of mHealth interventions on postpartum depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare. doi: 10.1177/1357633X20917816, epub ahead of print.Google ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Flowchart on the selection of studies.

Figure 1

Table 1. Selected characteristics of included studies

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Forest plot of studies comparing psychotherapy for perinatal depression with control conditions: Hedges' g.

Figure 3

Table 2. Effects of psychological treatments of perinatal depression: Hedges' g a

Figure 4

Table 3. Effects of psychological treatments of perinatal depression on other outcomes: Hedges' ga,b,c,d

Supplementary material: File

Cuijpers et al. supplementary material

Cuijpers et al. supplementary material

Download Cuijpers et al. supplementary material(File)
File 670 KB