Cited by 33Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumPregnancy-related medical researchMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions

Systematic review and meta‐analysis of non‐pharmacological interventions to reduce the symptoms of mild to moderate anxiety in pregnant women

Open access
Evans, Kerry, Morrell, C Jane, Spiby, Helen·2018·Journal of Advanced Nursing

Abstract

Aim: To assess the effectiveness of non‐pharmacological interventions for pregnant women with symptoms of mild to moderate anxiety. Background: Many pregnant women experience mild to moderate symptoms of anxiety and could benefit from additional support. Non‐pharmacological interventions have been suggested for use during pregnancy. Design: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Data sources: Randomized controlled trials published since 1990, identified from electronic databases: Medline; CINAHL; Maternity and Infant Care; Psyc INFO; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; CENTRAL; EMBASE; Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; Social Sciences Citation Index; ASSIA; HTA Library; Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence‐Based Practice database; Allied and Complementary Medicine. Review methods: Conducted according to the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination procedure. Papers were screened (N = 5,222), assessed for eligibility (N = 57) and selected for inclusion (N = 25). The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias was used. Papers were assessed for clinical and statistical heterogeneity and considered for meta‐analysis. Descriptive analysis of the data was conducted. Results: Psychological, mind‐body, educational and supportive interventions were delivered individually and to groups of pregnant women over single or multiple sessions. The State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory was the most commonly used anxiety measure. In 60% of studies there were fewer than 40 participants. Meta‐analysis of three studies indicated no observed beneficial effect in the reduction of anxiety. Conclusion: There was insufficient evidence from which to draw overall conclusions regarding the benefit of interventions. Results were predominantly based on small samples. Many papers provided an inadequate description of methods which prevented a full assessment of methodological quality.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jan.13456

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 77 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Australian Psychological Society (2010) Evidence-based Psychological Interventions in the Treatment of Mental Disorders : A Literature Review. Australian Psychological Society.
  2. Bittner A., Peukert A., Zimmerman C., Junge-Hoffmeister C., Parker L., Stobel-Richter Y. & Weidner K. (2014) Early Intervention in Pregnant Women with Elevated Anxiety and Depressive Symptoms. Journal of Perinatal and Neonatal Nursing, 28, 185-195.
  3. Cardwell M. (2013) Stress: pregnancy considerations. Obstetrical & gynecological survey, 68 (2), 119-29.
  4. Chang M-Y., Chen C-H. & Huang K-F. (2008) Effects of music therapy on psychological nursing studies, 46 (5), 669-77.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Evans, K., Morrell, C. J., & Spiby, H.
Affiliations
University of Nottingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Evans, Kerry
Venue
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-10-16
Volume
74
Issue
2
Pages
289-309
ISSN
  • 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2648
OpenAlex
W2756254589
Cited by
33
References
77
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Advanced Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Nottingham ePrints (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Royal College of Midwives
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pregnancy-related medical research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Keywords
prenatal anxiety, non-pharmacological treatment, pregnant women, mind-body interventions, psychological intervention, educational intervention, support measures, anxiety reduction, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory
MeSH terms
Adult, Anxiety Disorders, Behavior Therapy, Female, Humans, Pregnancy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Pregnant People

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