Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Perinatal depression is a global public health problem that seriously affects the health of perinatal women. This study evaluated the pooled uptake rate of interventions among women who screened positive for perinatal depression to provide a basis for clinical intervention.
METHODS: We systematically searched four databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) from the establishment of the database to May 1, 2023. All included studies were used to derive the pooled uptake rate. We also performed meta-regression and subgroup analysis to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity using STATA 17.0.
RESULTS: Of 15024 retrieved articles, only 41 met the inclusion criteria. The overall uptake rate was 55 % (95 % CI 43-67 %). Meta-regression and subgroup analyses both showed that the uptake rate in high-income countries 57 % (95 % CI 50-65 %) was higher than that in low and middle-income countries 37 % (95 % CI 18-56 %).
CONCLUSIONS: First, only English publications were included. Therefore, articles in other languages were likely missed. Second, of the 41 studies included, there were only six randomized controlled trials, with limited quality of evidence. Third, we could not adequately explain the source of heterogeneity because there were too many mediating variables, although further subgroup and sensitivity analysis were performed.
CONCLUSIONS: About a half of women did not receive interventions after screening positive, and the uptake rate of interventions in high-income countries was higher than that in low and middle-income countries.
METHODS: We systematically searched four databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) from the establishment of the database to May 1, 2023. All included studies were used to derive the pooled uptake rate. We also performed meta-regression and subgroup analysis to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity using STATA 17.0.
RESULTS: Of 15024 retrieved articles, only 41 met the inclusion criteria. The overall uptake rate was 55 % (95 % CI 43-67 %). Meta-regression and subgroup analyses both showed that the uptake rate in high-income countries 57 % (95 % CI 50-65 %) was higher than that in low and middle-income countries 37 % (95 % CI 18-56 %).
CONCLUSIONS: First, only English publications were included. Therefore, articles in other languages were likely missed. Second, of the 41 studies included, there were only six randomized controlled trials, with limited quality of evidence. Third, we could not adequately explain the source of heterogeneity because there were too many mediating variables, although further subgroup and sensitivity analysis were performed.
CONCLUSIONS: About a half of women did not receive interventions after screening positive, and the uptake rate of interventions in high-income countries was higher than that in low and middle-income countries.
摘要：
背景：围产期抑郁症是一个全球性的公共卫生问题，严重影响围产期妇女的健康。本研究评估了围产期抑郁症筛查阳性的妇女对干预措施的汇总摄取率，为临床干预提供依据。
方法：我们系统地搜索了四个数据库(PubMed，Embase,Cochrane图书馆和WebofScience）从数据库建立到2023年5月1日。所有纳入的研究均用于得出合并的摄取率。我们还使用STATA17.0进行了荟萃回归和亚组分析以探索异质性的潜在来源。
结果：在检索到的15,024篇文章中，只有41人符合纳入标准。总摄取率为55%(95%CI43-67%)。Meta回归和亚组分析均显示，高收入国家的吸收率为57％（95％CI50-65％）高于低收入和中等收入国家的37％（95％CI18-56％）。
结论：首先，只包括英文出版物。因此,其他语言的文章可能会被遗漏。第二,在包括的41项研究中，只有六项随机对照试验，证据质量有限。第三，我们不能充分解释异质性的来源，因为中介变量太多，尽管进行了进一步的亚组和敏感性分析.
结论：大约一半的女性在筛查阳性后没有接受干预，高收入国家的干预措施吸收率高于低收入和中等收入国家。
方法：我们系统地搜索了四个数据库(PubMed，Embase,Cochrane图书馆和WebofScience）从数据库建立到2023年5月1日。所有纳入的研究均用于得出合并的摄取率。我们还使用STATA17.0进行了荟萃回归和亚组分析以探索异质性的潜在来源。
结果：在检索到的15,024篇文章中，只有41人符合纳入标准。总摄取率为55%(95%CI43-67%)。Meta回归和亚组分析均显示，高收入国家的吸收率为57％（95％CI50-65％）高于低收入和中等收入国家的37％（95％CI18-56％）。
结论：首先，只包括英文出版物。因此,其他语言的文章可能会被遗漏。第二,在包括的41项研究中，只有六项随机对照试验，证据质量有限。第三，我们不能充分解释异质性的来源，因为中介变量太多，尽管进行了进一步的亚组和敏感性分析.
结论：大约一半的女性在筛查阳性后没有接受干预，高收入国家的干预措施吸收率高于低收入和中等收入国家。
