Cited by 238Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsMaternal and Neonatal Healthcare

Antenatal screening for postnatal depression: a systematic review

Austin, M.‐P., Lumley, J.·2003·Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica

Abstract

Objective To describe the screening properties of the antenatal tools which have been developed to predict depression after birth and to summarize the implications of the findings for antenatal screening. Method Systematic review and secondary analysis of published papers. Results Sixteen studies including sufficient data for the calculation of screening properties were identified. The majority developed a study-specific screening instrument. Outcome assessments used the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale or standardized diagnostic psychiatric interviews, or both. In the two largest population-based studies, the proportion of women screening as positive ('at risk' of postnatal depression) was 16 and 52%, respectively, and of these only 35 and 8% actually developed depression after birth. Conclusion No screening instrument(s) met the criteria for routine application in the antenatal period. Factors that may have affected poor sensitivity and positive predictive values include the exclusion of key domains in predicting risk, particularly personality, a past history of abuse and postnatal events, the contribution of which may be being under-estimated in studies evaluating antenatal risk prediction tools.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1034/j.1600-0447.2003.02024.x

Cites

4 of 4 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?

  • The proportion of elevated depressive symptomatology in this sample is higher than reported by other investigators screening for antepartum depression.

    “This is also a higher proportion than reported by other investigators screening for antepartum depression.33”

    From Prenatal Depression in Women Hospitalized for Obstetric Risk (2008) · cites this paper as [33]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Austin, M. ‐., & Lumley, J.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • La Trobe University (AU)
Corresponding author
Austin, M.‐P.
Venue
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-01
Volume
107
Issue
1
Pages
10-17
ISSN
  • 0001-690X (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0447
OpenAlex
W2108915685
Cited by
238
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 7
FWCI
3.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica (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
postpartum depression, prenatal screening, screening tool, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, sensitivity and positive predictive value, risk prediction, personality, abuse history, maternal mental health
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Pregnancy, Prenatal Care, Depression, Postpartum

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