Search

Introduction: The prevalence of depression and anxiety symptoms in pregnant and postpartum women during the COVID-19 pandemic was assessed by several systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses which provided contrasting and different results. We aimed to summarize the evidence relating to the global prevalence of anxiety and depression among pregnant and postpartum women during the COVID-19 pandemic., Material and Methods: An umbrella review of SRs and meta-analyses was performed. Searches were conducted in electronic databases up to April 2023. SRs and meta-analyses reporting the prevalence of perinatal anxiety and depression during the COVID-19 pandemic were selected for eligibility. Primary studies extracted from eligible meta-analyses were included in the quantitative synthesis. The research protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020173125)., Results: A total of 25 SRs (198 primary studies) and 12 meta-analyses (129 primary studies) were included in the qualitative and quantitative synthesis, respectively. Studies involved data from five continents and 45 countries. The pooled prevalence of antenatal and postpartum depression was 29% (n = 55; 95% CI: 25%-33%) and 26% (n = 54; 95% CI: 23%-30%), respectively. In the case of anxiety, the pooled antenatal and postnatal prevalence was 31% (n = 44; 95% CI: 26%-37%; n = 16; 95% CI: 24%-39%). Differences emerged between continents, with Africa having the highest prevalence of perinatal depression and Oceania and Europe having the highest prevalence of antenatal and postnatal anxiety. The prevalence also varied depending on the assessment tools, especially for antenatal anxiety. A medium-high quality of the studies was observed. One SR assessed strength-of-evidence, reporting very low strength., Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic, depression and anxiety were common, affecting almost one in three perinatal women globally. A high heterogeneity and a risk of publication bias were found, partially due to the variety of assessment tools and cut-offs. The results may not be generalized to minorities. Studies on the prevalence of clinical diagnoses are needed. Based on our results it is not possible to firmly affirm that the COVID-19 pandemic was the main factor that directly increased perinatal depression and anxiety during the past few years. Future studies should study other factors' impact., (© 2023 The Authors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG).)

Objective: To examine the effectiveness of a 12-month MHBC intervention in the prevention of onset depression in primary health care (PHC)., Methods: Twenty-two PHC centres took part in the cluster-randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomized to receive either usual care or an MHBC intervention. The endpoints were onset of major depression and reduction of depressive symptoms in participants without baseline depression at a 12-month follow-up., Results: 2531 patients agreed and were eligible to participate. At baseline, around 43% were smokers, 82% were non-adherent to the Mediterranean diet and 55% did not perform enough physical activity. The intervention group exhibited a greater positive change in two or more behaviours (OR 1.75 [95%CI: 1.17 to 2.62]; p = 0.006); any behaviour (OR 1.58 [95%CI: 1.13 to 2.20]; p = 0.007); and adherence to the Mediterranean diet (OR 1.94 [95%CI: 1.29 to 2.94]; p = 0.002), while this increase was not statistically significant for smoking and physical activity. The intervention was not effective in preventing major depression (OR 1.17; [95% CI 0.53 to 2.59)]; p = 0.690) or reducing depressive symptoms (Mean difference: 0.30; [95% CI -0.77 to 1.36]; p = 0.726) during follow-up., Conclusions: As compared to usual care, the MHBC intervention provided a non-significant reduction in the incidence of major depression., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03136211., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The evidence available on the association between social support and prevention of depression has been basically obtained from observational studies., Aim: We evaluated the effectiveness of social support-based interventions for the prevention of depression in people without clinical depression., Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis (SR/MA) of randomized controlled trials (RCT), which were searched for in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, WOS, PsycINFO, OpenGrey and other sources from the inception dates to June 8, 2022. We selected RCTs that assessed the effectiveness of social support-based interventions as compared to controls, included subjects without baseline clinical depression, and measured as results a reduction in depressive symptoms and/or the incidence of new cases of depression. Pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated from random effects models., Results: Nine RCTs involving 927 patients from North America, Asia and Europe were included. The pooled SMD was -0.43 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.82 to -0.04; p  = .031]. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of results. Heterogeneity was substantial [ I 2  = 80% (95% CI: 64% to 89%)]. A meta-regression model that included usual care as comparator and the continent (Europe), explained 53% of heterogeneity. Eight RCTs had a moderate overall risk of bias and one had a high risk of bias. Follow-up was ⩾1 year in only three RCTs. There was no statistical evidence of publication bias. The quality of evidence, as measured on GRADE guidelines, was low., Conclusion: Social support-based interventions had a small preventive effect on depression. Longer RCTs with a low risk of bias are necessary.

Background: The relationship between the quality of the diet and the adherence to the Mediterranean diet with the presence of persistent or recurrent depressive symptoms have been described. The objective of this study is to analyze the relationship between adherence to the Mediterranean diet and the intake of specific foods in primary care patients aged 45 to 75, having subclinical or major depression. The study also specifically analyzes this relationship in individuals suffering from chronic diseases., Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted. 3062 subjects met the inclusion criteria from the EIRA study. Sociodemographic variables, clinical morbidity, depression symptomatology (PHQ-9) and adherence to Mediterranean diet (MEDAS) were collected., Results: Being female, younger, with a higher BMI, consuming more than 1 serving of red meat a day and drinking more than one carbonated or sugary drink daily, not consuming 3 servings of nuts a week and not eating 2 vegetables cooked in olive oil a week are predictors of having higher depressive symptomatology., Conclusions: Assessing the type of diet of patients presenting depressive symptoms and promoting adherence to a healthy diet is important, especially in patients with chronic diseases. However, depression is a very complex issue and the relationship between nutrition and depression must be further examined.

Though many studies have explored the association between single-risk lifestyle interventions and depression, unhealthy lifestyle factors often co-occur, with adults engaging in two or more risk behaviours. To date, little is known about the effectiveness of universal multiple-risk lifestyle interventions to reduce depressive symptoms. We conducted a SR/MA to assess the effectiveness of universal multiple-risk lifestyle interventions (by promoting a healthy diet, physical activity and/or smoking cessation) to reduce depressive symptoms in adults. We searched MEDLINE, Scopus, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, WOS, OpenGrey, the ICTRP and other sources from inception to 16 September 2019. We selected only randomized controlled trials, with no restrictions on language or setting. Our outcome was the reduction of depressive symptoms. We calculated the standardized mean difference using random-effect models. Sensitivity, sub-group and meta-regression analyses were performed. Of the 9386 abstracts reviewed, 311 were selected for full-text review. Of these, 23 RCTs met the inclusion criteria, including 7558 patients from four continents. Twenty RCTs provided valid data for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The pooled SMD was -0.184 (95% CI, -0.311 to -0.057; p = 0.005). We found no publication bias, but heterogeneity was substantial (I 2  = 72%; 95% CI: 56% to 82%). The effectiveness disappeared when only studies with a low risk of bias were included. The quality of evidence according GRADE was low. Although a small preventive effect was found, the substantial heterogeneity and RCTs with lower risk of bias suggested no effectiveness of universal multiple-risk lifestyle interventions in reducing depressive symptoms in a varied adult population. Further evidence is required., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Many studies have explored the impact of lifestyle interventions on depression. However, little is known about the effectiveness of complex multiple-risk lifestyle interventions in reducing symptoms of depression. Our objective is to assess the effectiveness of complex multiple-risk lifestyle interventions in reducing depressive symptoms in the adult population by the acquisition of at least two healthy habits-healthy diet, physical activity and/or smoking cessation. For such purpose, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials will be conducted., Method and Analysis: MEDLINE (through Ovid and PubMed), Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, PsycINFO, OpenGrey Register (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe) and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform will be searched for relevant articles. Additionally, a supplementary manual search will be performed using lists of references, references to expert authors and other systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses. Study selection, data extraction (target habits, country, target populations, conditions and statistical data to name a few) and assessment of the risk of bias will be performed separately by two independent researchers. The primary outcome measure will be the reduction of depression symptoms, as measured by validated instruments. We will calculate pooled standardised mean differences and 95% CIs using random-effect models. Heterogeneity, sensitivity and publication bias will be assessed, and sub-group analysis will be performed. Heterogeneity will be explored by random-effects meta-regression analysis., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval is not required for this study. The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis will be presented in relevant conferences and published in a peer-review journal. The findings of this study could have important clinical and scientific implications for the improvement of symptoms of depression., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42018100253; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: There is evidence that women with gestational diabetes are at increased risk of the common mental disorders of anxiety and depression. The COVID-19 pandemic may have exerted an additional burden on the mental health of this population. The aim of this analysis was to compare levels of symptoms of common mental disorders and experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic between pregnant and postnatal women exposed and unexposed to gestational diabetes. Methods: Cross-sectional study utilizing quantitative data from an online survey administered across 10 countries to women who were pregnant or up to 6 months postpartum from 15 June to October 31, 2020. Women self-reported gestational diabetes and completed the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale and GAD-7 (Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7 items) measures. The COPE-IS (Coronavirus Perinatal Experiences–Impact Survey) tool was also administered. Complete case analyses were conducted on a sample of 7,371 women. Results: There was evidence of an association between gestational diabetes and increased levels of depression symptoms, which was robust to adjustment for age, education, and employment status. There was only evidence of an association with anxiety in postnatal women. There was also evidence that women with gestational diabetes, particularly those in the postnatal period, experienced higher levels of pandemic-related distress, although they did not experience higher levels of COVID-19 infection in this sample. Conclusions: The increased risk of common mental disorders in women with gestational diabetes underscores the importance of integrated physical and mental health care for pregnant and postnatal women both during and beyond the pandemic. Clinical Trial Registration no. NCT04595123. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Postpartum depression (PPD) is one of the most common disorders following childbirth. This systematic review and meta-analysis (SR/MA) aimed to assess the effectiveness of psychological interventions in preventing PPD in non-depressed women. PRISMA guidelines were followed. MEDLINE (Ovid and PubMed), PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, CENTRAL, OpenGrey, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry and clinicaltrial.gov were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted with pregnant or postpartum (up to 12 months) women who were non-depressed at baseline were selected. The outcomes were the incidence of PPD and/or the reduction of postpartum depressive symptoms. The standardized mean difference (SMD) using random-effect models was calculated. Sensitivity, sub-group and meta-regression analyses were performed. 17 RCTs were included in the SR and 15 in the MA, representing 4958 participants from four continents. The pooled SMD was −0.175 [95% confidence interval (CI) −0.266 to −0.083; p < 0.001] and sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of this result. Heterogeneity was low (I2 = 21.20%) and was fully explained by a meta-regression model including one variable (previous deliveries). The meta-regression model and MA stratified by previous deliveries indicated that interventions focused on primiparous women are more effective. There was no evidence of publication bias. Few RCTs had an overall low risk of bias. According to GRADE, the quality of evidence was moderate. Psychological interventions have very little effectiveness in preventing PPD in non-depressed women, although this effectiveness is greater in interventions focused on primiparous women. Further RCTs with a low risk of bias and more effective interventions are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]