Search

To review the available evidence about the prevalence and determinants of antenatal common mental disorders (antenatal CMDs) among women in India. We searched Ovid Medline, Embase and Psyinfo systematically from date of inception to Oct. 31, 2019 for publications in English language on the prevalence of antenatal CMDs and their determinants among women in India. All study designs were included. Quality was assessed with Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Primary Research Papers. We performed a meta-analysis using a random effects model. Twenty-seven studies involving 7780 women were analysed. There was a high degree of heterogeneity ((I2 = 97.53%). Publication bias [Egger bias = 0.65 (95% CI: 0.36;.94)] was evident. The overall pooled estimate of the prevalence of antenatal CMDs was 21.87% (95% CI: 17.46; 26.29). Significant risk factors reported in the 18 studies which examined them were negative reaction of husband or in-laws to the dowry, difficult relationship with husband/in-laws, lack of support or experiencing violence perpetrated by an intimate partner and preference for or feeling pressured to have a male child. Protective factors were having more education and being employed, having a supportive husband and opportunities for recreation during pregnancy. Antenatal CMDs are highly prevalent among women in India. There is an urgent need for locally developed policies and programmes for mental health promotion during pregnancy, preventive and early intervention for antenatal CMDs among women to be integrated into maternity care in India. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ratio-based prevalence and absolute headcounts are the two most commonly accepted metrics to measure the burden of various socioeconomic phenomenon. However, ratio-based prevalence, calculated as the number of cases with certain conditions relative to the total population, is by far the most widely used to rank burden and consequently for targeting, across different populations, often defined in terms of geographical areas. In this regard, targeting areas exclusively based on prevalence-based metric poses certain fundamental difficulties with some serious policy implications. Drawing the data from the National Family Health Survey 2015–2016, and Census 2011, this paper takes four indicators of child undernutrition in India as an example to examine two contextual questions: first, does the choice of metric matter for targeting areas for reducing child undernutrition in India? and second; which metric should be used to facilitate comparisons and targeting across variable populations? Our findings suggest a moderate correlation between prevalence estimates and absolute headcounts implying that choice of metric does matter when targeting child undernutrition. Huge variations were observed between prevalence-based and absolute count-based ranking of the districts. In fact, in various cases, districts with the highest absolute number of undernourished children were ranked as relatively lower-burden districts based on prevalence. A simple comparison between the two approaches—when applied to targeting undernourished children in India—indicates that prevalence-based prioritization may miss high-burden areas where substantially higher number of undernourished children are concentrated. For developing populous countries like India, which is already grappling with high levels of maternal and child malnutrition and poor health infrastructure along with intrinsic socioeconomic inequalities, it is critical to adopt an appropriate metric for effective targeting and prioritization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]