Search

This review examines the association between the perinatal period and thoughts and behaviours of neonaticide, infanticide, and filicide, highlighting mothers' risk factors. A literature search was conducted on PubMed, PsycINFO, and ScienceDirect, with 2,957 articles screened and 13 determined as eligible for inclusion. Inclusion criteria were: 1) studies on neonaticide, infanticide and filicide; 2) studies conducted on women; 3) studies with perinatal population; 4) original, peer-reviewed studies; 5) studies written in English or Italian language. Single-case reports and qualitative studies were excluded, as were those studies written in any other language, and any studies for which the full-text version could not be obtained (i.e. conference abstracts). Two reviewers independently reviewed titles and abstracts, reviewed relevant articles' full text, and extracted the data. Several individuals and socio-environmental risk factors were identified for neonaticide, infanticide, and filicide during the perinatal period, highlighting the importance of paying particular attention to the mother's well-being in this critical phase. Women who committed neonaticide, infanticide, or filicide faced a variety of challenges in their lives. Such life events might prompt mental health professionals to address the possibility of harmful acts in their patients.

Objectives: Estimates of depression prevalence in pregnancy and postpartum are based on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) more than on any other method. We aimed to determine if any EPDS cutoff can accurately and consistently estimate depression prevalence in individual studies. Methods: We analyzed datasets that compared EPDS scores to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID) major depression status. Random‐effects meta‐analysis was used to compare prevalence with EPDS cutoffs versus the SCID. Results: Seven thousand three hundred and fifteen participants (1017 SCID major depression) from 29 primary studies were included. For EPDS cutoffs used to estimate prevalence in recent studies (≥9 to ≥14), pooled prevalence estimates ranged from 27.8% (95% CI: 22.0%–34.5%) for EPDS ≥ 9 to 9.0% (95% CI: 6.8%–11.9%) for EPDS ≥ 14; pooled SCID major depression prevalence was 9.0% (95% CI: 6.5%–12.3%). EPDS ≥14 provided pooled prevalence closest to SCID‐based prevalence but differed from SCID prevalence in individual studies by a mean absolute difference of 5.1% (95% prediction interval: 13.7%, 12.3%). Conclusion: EPDS ≥14 approximated SCID‐based prevalence overall, but considerable heterogeneity in individual studies is a barrier to using it for prevalence estimation., This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR, KRS‐140994). Ms. Lyubenova was supported by the Mitacs Globalink Research Internship Program. Ms. Neupane was supported by G.R. Caverhill Fellowship from the Faculty of Medicine, McGill University. Drs. Levis and Wu were supported by Fonds de recherche du Québec‐Santé (FRQS) Postdoctoral Training Fellowships. Mr. Bhandari was supported by a studentship from the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre. Ms. Rice was supported by a Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship. Ms. Azar was supported by a FRQS Masters Training Award. The primary study by Barnes et al. was supported by a grant from the Health Foundation (1665/608). The primary study by Beck et al. was supported by the Patrick and Catherine Weldon Donaghue Medical Research Foundation and the University of Connecticut Research Foundation. The primary study by Helle et al. was supported by the Werner Otto Foundation, the Kroschke Foundation, and the Feindt Foundation. Prof. Robertas Bunevicius, MD, PhD (1958‐2016) was Principal Investigator of the primary study by Bunevicius et al., but passed away and was unable to participate in this project. The primary study by Chaudron et al. was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (grant K23 MH64476). The primary study by Tissot et al. was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant 32003B 125493). The primary study by Tendais et al. was supported under the project POCI/SAU‐ESP/56397/2004 by the Operational Program Science and Innovation 2010 (POCI 2010) of the Community Support Board III and by the European Community Fund FEDER. The primary study by Garcia‐Esteve et al. was supported by grant 7/98 from the Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales, Women's Institute, Spain. The primary study by Howard et al. was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (Grant Reference Numbers RP‐PG‐1210‐12002 and RP‐DG‐1108‐10012) and by the South London Clinical Research Network. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The primary study by Phillips et al. was supported by a scholarship from the National Health and Medical and Research Council (NHMRC). The primary study by Nakić Radoš et al. was supported by the Croatian Ministry of Science, Education, and Sports (134‐0000000‐2421). The primary study by Navarro et al. was supported by grant 13/00 from the Ministry of Work and Social Affairs, Institute of Women, Spain. The primary study by Pawlby et al. was supported by a Medical Research Council UK Project Grant (number G89292999N). The primary study by Quispel et al. was supported by Stichting Achmea Gezondheid (grant number z‐282). Dr. Robertson‐Blackmore was supported by a Young Investigator Award from the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation and NIMH grant K23MH080290. The primary study by Rochat et al. was supported by grants from the University of Oxford (HQ5035), the Tuixen Foundation (9940), the Wellcome Trust (082384/Z/07/Z and 071571), and the American Psychological Association. Dr. Rochat receives salary support from a Wellcome Trust Intermediate Fellowship (211374/Z/18/Z). The primary study by Prenoveau et al. was supported by The Wellcome Trust (grant number 071571). The primary study by Stewart et al. was supported by Professor Francis Creed's Journal of Psychosomatic Research Editorship fund (BA00457) administered through University of Manchester. The primary study by Tandon et al. was funded by the Thomas Wilson Sanitarium. The primary study by Tran et al. was supported by the Myer Foundation who funded the study under its Beyond Australia scheme. Dr. Tran was supported by an early career fellowship from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. The primary study by Vega‐Dienstmaier et al. was supported by Tejada Family Foundation, Inc, and Peruvian‐American Endowment, Inc. Drs. Benedetti and Thombs were supported by FRQS researcher salary awards.

Objectives: A previous individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) identified differences in major depression classification rates between different diagnostic interviews, controlling for depressive symptoms on the basis of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. We aimed to determine whether similar results would be seen in a different population, using studies that administered the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) in pregnancy or postpartum. Methods: Data accrued for an EPDS diagnostic accuracy IPDMA were analysed. Binomial generalised linear mixed models were fit to compare depression classification odds for the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), and Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID), controlling for EPDS scores and participant characteristics. Results: Among fully structured interviews, the MINI (15 studies, 2,532 participants, 342 major depression cases) classified depression more often than the CIDI (3 studies, 2,948 participants, 194 major depression cases; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.21, 11.43]). Compared with the semistructured SCID (28 studies, 7,403 participants, 1,027 major depression cases), odds with the CIDI (interaction aOR = 0.88, 95% CI [0.85, 0.92]) and MINI (interaction aOR = 0.95, 95% CI [0.92, 0.99]) increased less as EPDS scores increased. Conclusion: Different interviews may not classify major depression equivalently., This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR, KRS-140994). Ms. Levis was supported by a CIHR Frederick Banting and Charles Best Canada Graduate Scholarship Doctoral Awards. Ms. Rice was supported by a Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship. Dr. Wu was supported by an Utting Postdoctoral Fellowship from the Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Ms. Azar was supported by a Fonds de recherche du Québec - Santé (FRQS) Masters Training Award. Mr. Bhandari was supported by a studentship from the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre. The primary study by Alvarado et al. was supported by the Ministry of Health of Chile. The primary study by Barnes et al. was supported by a grant from the Health Foundation (1665/608). The primary study by Beck et al. was supported by the Patrick and Catherine Weldon Donaghue Medical Research Foundation and the University of Connecticut Research Foundation. The primary study by Helle et al. was supported by the Werner Otto Foundation, the Kroschke Foundation, and the Feindt Foundation. Prof. Robertas Bunevicius, MD, PhD (1958–2016) was principal investigator of the primary study by Bunevicius et al. but passed away and was unable to participate in this project. The primary study by Couto et al. was supported by the National Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq; Grant 444254/2014-5) and the Minas Gerais State Research Foundation (FAPEMIG; Grant APQ-01954-14). The primary study by Chaudron et al. was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (Grant K23 MH64476). The primary study by Figueira et al. was supported by the Brazilian Ministry of Health and by the National Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq; Grant 403433/2004-5). The primary study by de Figueiredo et al. was supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo. The primary study by Tissot et al. was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant 32003B 125493). The primary study by Fernandes et al. was supported by grants from the Child: Care Health and Development Trust and the Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, and by the Ashok Ranganathan Bursary from Exeter College, University of Oxford. Dr. Fernandes was supported by a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) academic clinical fellowship. The primary study by Tendais et al. was supported under the project POCI/SAU-ESP/56397/2004 by the Operational Program Science and Innovation 2010 (POCI 2010) of the Community Support Board III and by the European Community Fund FEDER. The primary study by Fisher et al. was supported by a grant under the Invest to Grow Scheme from the Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. The primary study by Garcia-Esteve et al. was supported by Grant 7/98 from the Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales, Women's Institute, Spain. The primary study by Howard et al. was supported by the NIHR under its Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (Grants RP-PG-1210-12002 and RPDG-1108-10012) and by the South London Clinical Research Network. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care. The primary study by Phillips et al. was supported by a scholarship from the National Health and Medical and Research Council (NHMRC). The primary study by Roomruangwong et al. was supported by the Ratchadaphiseksomphot Endowment Fund 2013 of Chulalongkorn University (CU-56-457-HR). The primary study by Naki c Radoš et al. was supported by the Croatian Ministry of Science, Education, and Sports. The primary study by Navarro et al. was supported by Grant 13/00 from the Ministry of Work and Social Affairs, Institute of Women, Spain. The primary study by Usuda et al. was supported by Grants-in-Aid for Young Scientists (A) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (primary investigator: Daisuke Nishi, MD, PhD) and by an Intramural Research Grant for Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders from the National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, Japan. Dr. Robertson-Blackmore was supported by a Young Investigator Award from the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation and NIMH Grant K23MH080290. The primary study by Rochat et al. was supported by grants from University of Oxford (HQ5035), the Tuixen Foundation (9940), the Wellcome Trust (082384/Z/07/Z and 071571), and the American Psychological Association. Dr. Rochat receives salary support from a Wellcome Trust Intermediate Fellowship (211374/Z/18/Z). The primary study by Rowe et al. was supported by the diamond Consortium, beyondblue Victorian Centre of Excellence in Depression and Related Disorders. The primary study by Comasco et al. was supported by funds from the Swedish Research Council (VR: 521-2013-2339, VR: 523-2014-2342), the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (FAS: 2011-0627), the Marta Lundqvist Foundation (2013, 2014), and the Swedish Society of Medicine (SLS-331991). The primary study by Prenoveau et al. was supported by the Wellcome Trust (Grant 071571). The primary study by Stewart et al. was supported by Professor Francis Creed's Journal of Psychosomatic Research Editorship fund (BA00457) administered through University of Manchester. The primary study by Su et al. was supported by grants from the Department of Health (DOH94F044 and DOH95F022) and the China Medical University and Hospital (CMU94-105, DMR-92-92, and DMR94-46). The primary study by Tandon et al. was supported by the Thomas Wilson Sanitarium. The primary study by Tran et al. was supported by the Myer Foundation who funded the study under its Beyond Australia scheme. Dr. Tran was supported by an early career fellowship from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. The primary study by Vega-Dienstmaier et al. was supported by Tejada Family Foundation, Inc. and Peruvian-American Endowment, Inc. The primary study by Yonkers et al. was supported by a National Institute of Child Health and Human Development grant (5 R01HD045735). Drs. Benedetti and Thombs were supported by FRQS researcher salary awards.

Background Long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics provide some advantages in treatment compliance of psychotic disorders. However, information about their effects during pregnancy is still very limited. We expose a clinical case of aripiprazole LAI use in a pregnant woman diagnosed of schizophrenia. Methods A non-systematic review using Pubmed was conducted using the following terms: schizophrenia, pregnancy, aripiprazole and aripiprazole LAI. A clinical record review was performed for the clinical case report. Results We report the case of a 30-year-old woman diagnosed of schizophrenia. She required several hospital admissions in the past because of the mental disorder and the lack of treatment adherence, what was the consequence of having no insight of illness and her pregnancy desires. She was initially treated with risperidone, suffering from some adverse effects like prolactine elevation and amenorrhea. In the last hospital admission, she started treatment with aripiprazol 20mg, having a good tolerability and being finally changed into aripiprazole LAI 400mg/28days. No incidences were reported and stability was achieved. After five months, she became pregnant and started being followed up in the Perinatal Mental Health Unit that belongs to the same hospital. The severity of the mental disorder and her stability at that moment made psychiatrists; obstetricians and patient decide to keep the antipsychotic treatment with subsequent appointments. The goal was to supervise psychopathology and blood tests during pregnancy. Prolactine was in physiologic levels and there were no obstetric complications. She finally delivered at 41 gestational weeks to a 3465g baby girl (Apgar 1’: 9 Apgar 5’: 10). No neonatal complications were reported. The Stafford interview was also administered in order to explore her social, obstetric and psychological background as well as possible psychiatric complications due to pregnancy and puerperium. No psychiatric complications were reported. Postpartum Bounding Questionnaire was also administered. No bounding disorder was detected. Discussion Pregnancy and postpartum are periods that carry a high risk of illness onset or recurrence in women with severe mental disorders, such as schizophrenia. Having a good control of the symptoms may prevent from risks to both patient and child, due to the important influence that exists on the development of the baby and the mother-infant relationship.

Postpartum depression (PPD), a disorder that has severe consequences for mother and child (Pearlstein, Howard, Salisbury, & Zlotnick, 2009), is the most common psychiatric disorder experienced by women after childbirth (McGarry, Kim, Sheng, Egger, & Baksh, 2009), with a prevalence of ~7% during the first three postpartum months (O'Hara, 2009). While different biological (Albacar et al., 2011; Brummelte & Galea, 2010; Leung & Kaplan, 2009) and genetic (Costas et al., 2010; Mahon et al., 2009; Sanjuan et al., 2008; Treloar, Martin, Bucholz, Madden, & Heath, 1999) factors have been associated with PPD, most researchers have identified a history of affective disorder, depressive episodes and anxiety during pregnancy as the principal risk factors for PPD (O'Hara, 2009; Oppo et al., 2009). Social and psychological factors such as marital discord, low social support, stressful life events and lack of marital support have been strongly associated with PPD in several studies (Beck, 2001; Chen, 2001; O'Hara, 2009), and unemployment, which has been associated with depression in the general population (Stankunas, Kalediene, Starkuviene, & Kapustinskiene, 2006), has been specifically associated with PPD (Chen, 2001; Inandi et al., 2002; Jardri et al., 2006; Lane et al., 1997; Miyake, Tanaka, Sasaki, & Hirota, 2011; Posmontier, 2008; Rubertsson, Wickberg, Gustavsson, & Radestad, 2005; Warner, Appleby, Whitton, & Faragher, 1996). However, the results of studies on the impacts of other social variables such as income (Miyake et al., 2011) and the mother’s level of education (Beck, 2001; Josefsson et al., 2002; Kozinszky et al., 2011; Miyake et al., 2011) are controversial. A recent study in Japan found that full-time employment and professional or technical employment significantly reduced the risk of PPD, leading researchers to claim that it is likely that a