Strategies for improving perinatal depression treatment in North American outpatient obstetric settings
Abstract
Objective To identify core barriers and facilitators to addressing perinatal depression and review clinical, programmatic, and system level interventions that may optimize perinatal depression treatment. Method Eighty-four MEDLINE/PubMed searches were conducted using the terms perinatal depression, postpartum depression, antenatal depression, and prenatal depression in association with 21 other terms. Of 7768 papers yielded in the search, we identified 49 papers on barriers and facilitators, and 17 papers on interventions in obstetric settings aimed to engage women and/or providers in treatment. Results Barriers include stigma, lack of obstetric provider training, lack of resources and limited access to mental health treatment. Facilitators include validating and empowering women during interactions with health care providers, obstetric provider and staff training, standardized screening and referral processes, and improved mental health resources. Conclusion Specific clinical, program, and system level changes are recommended to help change the culture of obstetric care settings to optimize depression treatment.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Common barriers to accessing mental health care include stigma, travel difficulties, lack of time, physical limitations, and little knowledge about mental health issues.
“Among the most common barriers to accessing mental health care resources are the stigma associated with mental illness, travel difficulties for patients, lack of time, physical limitations, and little knowledge about mental health issues and when to see a professional (Byatt et al., 2012;Maxfield & Segal, 2008).”
From The Unified Protocol for Transdiagnostic Treatment of Perinatal Depression: A Case Study (2020) · cites this paper as Byatt et al., 2012
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 117 · Cited by 151
- Authors
- Byatt, N., Simas, T. A. M., Lundquist, R. S., Johnson, J. V., & Ziedonis, D. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (US)
- Department of Ob/Gyn and Pediatrics
- Department of Psychiatry
- Corresponding author
- Byatt, Nancy
- Venue
- Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2012-11-29
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 143-161
- ISSN
- 0167-482X (ISSN-L)
- 1743-8942
- OpenAlex
- W2145842095
- Cited by
- 151
- References
- 117
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 4
- FWCI
- 1.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Network (American Medical Association) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
- Keywords
- perinatal depression, postpartum depression, antenatal depression, barriers to treatment, facilitators of treatment, stigma, provider training, access to mental health care
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Ambulatory Care, Female, Humans, Mothers, North America, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Postnatal Care, Pregnancy, Professional-Patient Relations, Women's Health Services, Women's Health, Perinatal Care, Depression, Postpartum, Young Adult, Quality Improvement
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