Cited by 139Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsMaternal and Neonatal Healthcare

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Prevalence of the Maternity Blues in the Postpartum Period

Rezaie-Keikhaie, Khadije, Arbabshastan, Mohammad Edris, Rafiemanesh, Hosein, Amirshahi, Mehrbanoo, Ostadkelayeh, Shokoufeh Mogharabi, Arbabisarjou, Azizollah·2020·Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing

Abstract

Objective To determine the prevalence of maternity blues among women in the postpartum period.Data sources We conducted our systematic review and meta-analysis by searching the literature for relevant articles published in three international databases, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus, from date of inception through December 11, 2019, using the keywords prevalence, incidence, maternity blues, and baby blues.Study selection From 336 articles initially screened, we included 26 articles in the systematic review and meta-analysis.Data extraction Two independent reviewers used a standardized form to extract data from eligible articles. We evaluated the quality of individual studies and the overall evidence according to Hoy et al.'s risk of bias tool.Data synthesis The prevalence of maternity blues in the 26 included studies was 13.7% to 76.0%. Based on the results of the random effects model, the prevalence of maternity blues in 5,667 women was 39.0% (95% confidence interval [32.3, 45.6]; I 2 = 96.6%). The prevalence of maternity blues among women in Africa was greatest at 49.6%.Conclusion Considering the great prevalence of maternity blues in women after childbirth, paying attention to the key symptoms of maternity blues and implementing educational programs for health care providers and mothers after childbirth are essential.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jogn.2020.01.001

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Postpartum blues is a high prevalence, transient phenomenon, thought to be caused by hormonal changes after delivery, affecting up to half of new mothers in the first week postpartum.

    “Postpartum blues is a high prevalence, transient phenomenon, thought to be caused by hormonal changes after delivery, affecting up to half of new mothers in the first week postpartum (Bass III and Bauer, 2018; Rezaie-Keikhaie et al., 2020).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rezaie-Keikhaie, K., Arbabshastan, M. E., Rafiemanesh, H., Amirshahi, M., Ostadkelayeh, S. M., & Arbabisarjou, A.
Corresponding author
Arbabshastan, Mohammad Edris
Venue
Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-03
Volume
49
Issue
2
Pages
127-136
ISSN
  • 0090-0311 (ISSN-L)
  • 0884-2175
OpenAlex
W3004695425
Cited by
139
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 12
FWCI
3.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
Keywords
maternity blues, postpartum depression, postpartum period, prevalence, postpartum women, risk of bias, maternal health education
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Prevalence, Depression, Postpartum, Postpartum Period

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review