4.5 Review

The Prevalence of Postpartum Depression among Women with Substance Use, an Abuse History, or Chronic Illness: A Systematic Review

期刊

JOURNAL OF WOMENS HEALTH
卷 18, 期 4, 页码 475-486

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2008.0953

关键词

-

资金

  1. New Investigator by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Ontario Women's Health Council [NOW-84656]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Although much is known about risk factors for postpartum depression (PPD), many potentially important clinical variables have still not been investigated. In this systematic literature review, we examine the published evidence for the prevalence of PPD among three populations of women commonly seen by providers of perinatal care: women who use substances, women with current or past experiences of abuse, and women with chronic illness. Methods: We searched Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library from their start dates through to August 1, 2008, using keywords relevant to depression and each of the three target clinical populations. All published, peer-reviewed papers in English or French were included in the review if a standardized assessment of depression between 3 and 52 weeks postpartum was used and if either the prevalence of PPD in the target population or a comparison of depression scores between the target population and a control group were reported. Results: Seventeen papers were included in the review. There were high rates of PPD among substance-using women and those with current or past experiences of abuse. However, little evidence was found to suggest an increased risk for depression among women with chronic illness. Conclusions: Few eligible studies were identified for each clinical population of interest. Despite limitations of the studies reviewed, the results indicate that both substance use and current or past experiences of abuse are associated with increased risk for PPD. Targeted clinical interventions for these women may be beneficial.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据