4.5 Review

Postpartum depression in India: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

BULLETIN OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
Volume 95, Issue 10, Pages 706-+

Publisher

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
DOI: 10.2471/BLT.17.192237

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To provide an estimate of the burden of postpartum depression in Indian mothers and investigate some risk factors for the condition. Methods We searched PubMed (R), Google Scholar and Embase (R) databases for articles published from year 2000 up to 31 March 2016 on the prevalence of postpartum depression in Indian mothers. The search used subject headings and keywords with no language restrictions. Quality was assessed via the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. We performed the meta-analysis using a random effects model. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression was done for heterogeneity and the Egger test was used to assess publication bias. Findings Thirty-eight studies involving 20 043 women were analysed. Studies had a high degree of heterogeneity (f = 96.8%) and there was evidence of publication bias (Egger bias = 2.58; 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.83-4.33). The overall pooled estimate of the prevalence of postpartum depression was 22% ( 95% CI: 19-25). The pooled prevalence was 19% (95% CI: 17-22) when excluding 8 studies reporting postpartum depression within 2 weeks of delivery. Small, but non-significant differences in pooled prevalence were found by mother's age, geographical location and study setting. Reported risk factors for postpartum depression included financial difficulties, presence of domestic violence, past history of psychiatric illness in mother, marital conflict, lack of support from husband and birth of a female baby. Conclusion The review shows a high prevalence of postpartum depression in Indian mothers. More resources need to be allocated for capacity-building in maternal mental health care in India.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available