Objectives: Estimates of depression prevalence in pregnancy and postpartum are based on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) more than on any other method. We aimed to determine if any EPDS cutoff can accurately and consistently estimate depression prevalence in individual studies.Methods: We analyzed datasets that compared EPDS scores to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID) major depression status. Random‐effects meta‐analysis was used to compare prevalence with EPDS cutoffs versus the SCID.Results: Seven thousand three hundred and fifteen participants (1017 SCID major depression) from 29 primary studies were included. For EPDS cutoffs used to estimate prevalence in recent studies (≥9 to ≥14), pooled prevalence estimates ranged from 27.8% (95% CI: 22.0%–34.5%) for EPDS ≥ 9 to 9.0% (95% CI: 6.8%–11.9%) for EPDS ≥ 14; pooled SCID major depression prevalence was 9.0% (95% CI: 6.5%–12.3%). EPDS ≥14 provided pooled prevalence closest to SCID‐based prevalence but differed from SCID prevalence in individual studies by a mean absolute difference of 5.1% (95% prediction interval: −13.7%, 12.3%).Conclusion: EPDS ≥14 approximated SCID‐based prevalence overall, but considerable heterogeneity in individual studies is a barrier to using it for prevalence estimation.

Background: Psychosocial and psychological interventions are generally effective in reducing depressive symptomatology in the postpartum period. Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of a brief preventive group intervention for postpartum depression (PPD) in a naturalistic setting, and study the effect of this on social and psychological risk factors. Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled trial (n = 1,719) in south-eastern Hungary in 62 antepartum centers. Pregnant women (n = 710) underwent a 4-session preventive group intervention whereas a control group (n = 1,009) attended 4 sessions providing the same information given in usual care. Results: Our intervention appeared to significantly reduce the risk of PPD, as defined by Leverton Questionnaire total scores (OR = 0.69). It resulted in an absolute risk reduction of about 18% in those with antepartum depression and 0.5% in those with no depression at recruitment. A multiple logistic regression analysis revealed a much reduced risk in those with a perceived lack of partner support (OR = 0.4) in the treatment group. Unplanned pregnancy, an irreversible risk factor affecting every fifth woman, also seemed to have a reduced effect on PPD after our group intervention (OR = 0.81). Conclusions: A brief preventive antepartum group intervention focusing on psychoeducation, stress management, improving coping mechanisms, and the development of social support can be effective in reducing postpartum depressive symptomatology.

Objectives: A previous individual participant data meta‐analysis (IPDMA) identified differences in major depression classification rates between different diagnostic interviews, controlling for depressive symptoms on the basis of the Patient Health Questionnaire‐9. We aimed to determine whether similar results would be seen in a different population, using studies that administered the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) in pregnancy or postpartum.Methods: Data accrued for an EPDS diagnostic accuracy IPDMA were analysed. Binomial generalised linear mixed models were fit to compare depression classification odds for the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), and Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID), controlling for EPDS scores and participant characteristics.Results: Among fully structured interviews, the MINI (15 studies, 2,532 participants, 342 major depression cases) classified depression more often than the CIDI (3 studies, 2,948 participants, 194 major depression cases; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.21, 11.43]). Compared with the semistructured SCID (28 studies, 7,403 participants, 1,027 major depression cases), odds with the CIDI (interaction aOR = 0.88, 95% CI [0.85, 0.92]) and MINI (interaction aOR = 0.95, 95% CI [0.92, 0.99]) increased less as EPDS scores increased.Conclusion: Different interviews may not classify major depression equivalently.