Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Associations of depression and depressive symptoms with preeclampsia: results from a Peruvian case-control study

  • Chunfang Qiu1Email author,
  • Sixto E Sanchez2,
  • Nelly Lam3,
  • Pedro Garcia3 and
  • Michelle A Williams1, 4
BMC Women's HealthBMC series ¿ open, inclusive and trusted20077:15

DOI: 10.1186/1472-6874-7-15

Received: 02 May 2007

Accepted: 27 September 2007

Published: 27 September 2007

Abstract

Background

Preeclampsia involves endothelial dysfunction, platelet dysfunction/activation and sympathetic over-activity similar to cardiovascular disorders (CVD). Depression, an independent risk factor for progression of CVD, was found to be associated with an increased risk of preeclampsia among Finnish women. We examined the relation between depression/depressive symptoms and preeclampsia risk among Peruvian women.

Methods

The study included 339 preeclamptic cases and 337 normotensive controls. Depression and depressive symptoms during pregnancy were assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated from logistic regression models.

Results

The prevalence of moderate depression was 11.5% among cases and 5.3% among controls. The corresponding figures for moderate-severe depression were 3.5% for cases and 2.1% for controls. Compared with non-depressed women, those with moderate depression had a 2.3-fold increased risk of preeclampsia (95% CI: 1.2–4.4), while moderate-severe depression was associated with a 3.2-fold (95% CI: 1.1–9.6) increased risk of preeclampsia. Associations of each of the 9-items of the PHQ-9 depression screening module with preeclampsia risk were also observed.

Conclusion

Our findings are consistent with the only other published report on this topic. Collectively, available data support recent calls for expanded efforts to study and address depression among pregnant women.

Background

There is mounting evidence that depression is an independent risk factor for the progression of cardiovascular disease (CVD) [1]. Many factors can contribute to an increased risk for CVD in depressed patients. The concept of a bio-behavioral model to explain the relationship between depression and CVD is gaining support in the literature [2, 3]. This model includes characteristics ranging from an increased presence of classical risk factors for CVD (such as smoking, inactivity, hypertension, and diabetes) to changes in the immune system and dysregulation of the autonomic nervous system. Platelets from depressed patients have also been found to have increased 5-hydroxytryptamine 2 (5-HT2) binding density, suggesting that depressed patients may be at increased risk for serotonin-mediated platelet activation and coronary artery vasoconstriction [1].

Preeclampsia, a major cause of perinatal morbidity and mortality, occurs in 5–7% of pregnancies and is diagnosed when both hypertension and proteinuria are present [4]. Preeclampsia and CVD have overlapping risk factors, such as hypertension and diabetes, and appear to share similarities in pathophysiology, as both involve endothelial damage, vasoconstriction, platelet activation, and aggregation mediated by serotonin [5]. Because depression is an independent risk factor for the progression of CVD [1], it may also be a potential risk factor for preeclampsia. However, only one study has investigated the link between depression and preeclampsia [6]. Kurki and colleagues studied 623 pregnant nulliparous Finnish women at low risk for preeclampsia. All women had a healthy first trimester and were then evaluated using the Beck Depression and Anxiety scale at a median of 12 weeks' gestation. The authors observed that depression was associated with an increased risk of preeclampsia [odds ratio (OR) 2.5; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2–5.3] [6]. Taking into account the limited literature on this topic, we evaluated the relationship between maternal depression/depressive symptoms during pregnancy and preeclampsia risk, using data from a large case-control study of preeclampsia risk factors among Peruvian women.

Methods

This case-control study was conducted at the Materno Perinatal Institute of Lima and the Dos de Mayo Hospital in Lima, Peru, from May 2004 through October 2005. Both institutions are operated by the Peruvian government and are primarily responsible for providing maternity services to low-income women residing in Lima. This study was approved by the ethical committees of both hospitals. All participants provided written informed consent.

Cases were selected from those women with a diagnosis of preeclampsia. Potential preeclampsia cases were identified by daily monitoring of all new admissions to antepartum wards, emergency room wards, and labor and delivery wards of the study hospitals. Study subjects were recruited during their hospital stay. Study personnel made periodic visits to each ward in a fixed order for the purposes of identifying potential cases and controls for the present study. Preeclampsia was defined by sustained pregnancy-induced hypertension with proteinuria [4]. Hypertension was defined as sustained blood pressures of at least 140/90 mm Hg on or after 20 completed weeks' gestation and on at least two occasions at least four hours apart. Proteinuria was defined as a urine-protein concentration ≥ 30 mg/dl (or 1+ on a urine dipstick) in at least two random specimens collected at least four hours apart. Approximately 95% of eligible cases approached and asked to participate in the study elected to do so. There were 6 eclampsia (preeclampsia further complicated by maternal seizure) cases in the current study.

Controls were women with pregnancies uncomplicated by pregnancy-induced hypertension or proteinuria. Each day during the enrollment period, controls were numbered in the order in which they were admitted and identified. Subsequently, they were approached in the order in which research personnel identified them. Of the 362 controls approached, 337 (93%) agreed to participate in the study.

A standardized, structured questionnaire was used to collect information regarding maternal sociodemographic, medical, reproductive, and lifestyle characteristics during in-person interviews. All interviews were conducted in the hospital. We used the Patient Health Questionaire-9 (PHQ-9) to assess study subjects' experience of depression or depressive symptoms during pregnancy. PHQ-9 is from the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders Patient Health Questionnaire (PRIME-MD PHQ) and it consists of 9 items of depressive symptoms plus a question about functional impairment. Each item was marked on a scale from 0 to 3, and the circled numbers were added to obtain scores ranging from 0 to 27. Maternal experience of depression was determined by the response to the question: "During the last nine months (during your pregnancy), how often have you been bothered by any of the following problems?" Responses were coded, 0 = Not at all; 1 = Several days; 2 = More than half the days; 3 = Nearly every day. The problems were as follows: (i) Little interest or pleasure in doing things; (ii) Feeling down, depressed, or hopeless; (iii) Trouble falling or staying asleep, or sleeping too much; (iv) Feeling tired or having little energy; (v) Poor appetite or eating too much; (vi) Feeling bad about yourself or feeling that you are a failure or have let yourself or your family down; (vii) Trouble concentrating on things such as reading the newspaper or watching TV; (viii) Moving or speaking so slowly that other people could have noticed. Or the opposite – being so restless that you have been moving around a lot more than usual; (ix) Thought that you would be better off dead, or hurting yourself in some way. From these nine items, we calculated the total score. We interpreted the degree of depression according to total scores as follows: Minimal = 0–4; Mild = 5–9; Moderate = 10–14; Moderate to severe = 15–19; Severe ≥ 20 [7]. In a recent validation study of the PHQ-9 questionnaire, the authors concluded that the instrument is a reliable and valid measure of depression severity and a useful clinical and research tool [7]. We also explored the association between the frequency of experiencing each depressive symptom and preeclampsia risk.

Maternal and infant records were reviewed to collect detailed information concerning antepartum, labor, and delivery characteristics, as well as conditions of the newborn. Maternal anthropometric measures (height, weight, and mid-arm circumference) were taken during participants' hospital stays. Gestational age was based on the date of the last menstrual period and was confirmed by an ultrasound examination performed before 20 weeks. Pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI), a measure of overall maternal adiposity, was calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared. Women were classified as lean (BMI < 19.8 kg/m2), normal (BMI = 19.8–26.0 kg/m2), overweight (BMI = 26.1–29.0 kg/m2) and obese (BMI > 29.0 kg/m2), based on the Institute of Medicine's criteria [8].

We examined the frequency distribution of maternal sociodemographic characteristics and reproductive histories according to case and control status. Initial univariate analyses were carried out in order to determine unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Effect modification was evaluated by stratified analyses and by including appropriate interaction terms in logistic regression models [9]. If there appeared to be no effect modification, logistic regression procedures were used to simultaneously control for confounding variables while estimating ORs and 95% CIs. Confounders were defined as those factors that altered unadjusted ORs by at least 10%. Final logistic regression models included confounders, as well as those covariates of a priori interest (i.e., maternal age and parity). All analyses were performed using STATA 9.0 statistical software (Stata, College Station, Texas, USA). All continuous variables are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). All reported p-values are two-tailed, and all confidence intervals were calculated at the 95% level.

Results

Sociodemographic and reproductive characteristics of cases and controls are presented in Table 1. Compared with controls, cases tended to be older, single, heavier, and nulliparous. They were also more likely to be employed during pregnancy. Preeclampsia cases were more likely to deliver preterm term and to deliver by cesarean section.
Table 1

Sociodemographic and Reproductive Characteristics of the Study Population, Lima, Peru, 2004–2005

Characteristics

Preeclampsia Cases (N = 339)

Control Subjects (N = 337)

P-value

 

n

%

n

%

 

Maternal age at delivery (years)

27.0 ± 7.1*

 

25.7 ± 5.8

 

0.01

Maternal age at delivery (years)

     

   < 20

44

13.0

34

10.1

0.003

   20–34

229

67.5

265

78.6

 

   ≥ 35

66

19.5

38

11.3

 

Maternal education ≤ 12 years

289

85.3

300

89.0

NS

Single married status

81

24.2

45

13.4

< 0.01

Employed during pregnancy

134

39.5

98

29.1

0.02

Nullipara

160

47.2

117

34.7

< 0.05

No prenatal vitamins

68

20.1

59

17.5

NS

Gestational age at delivery (weeks)

37.4 ± 3.1 *

 

39.0 ± 2.2

 

< 0.001

   < 28

6

1.8

3

0.9

< 0.001

   28–33

35

10.3

7

2.1

 

   34–36

48

14.2

11

3.2

 

   ≥ 37

250

73.7

316

93.8

 

Infant birth weight (grams)

2852.9 ± 830.6 *

 

3248.2 ± 621.1

 

< 0.001

Pre-pregnancy body mass index (kg/m2)

24.8 ± 4.4 *

 

23.1 ± 3.3

 

< 0.001

Pre-pregnancy body mass index (kg/m2)

     

   < 19.8 (lean)

32

9.4

29

8.6

< 0.001

   19.8–26.0 (normal)

182

53.7

245

72.7

 

   26.1–29.0 (overweight)

60

17.7

34

10.1

 

   > 29.0 (obese)

53

15.6

16

4.7

 

   Missing

12

3.5

13

3.9

 

Delivery mode

     

   Vaginal delivery

108

31.9

318

94.4

< 0.001

   Cesarean delivery

230

67.9

19

5.6

 

We employed a two-sample Student's t-test to compare the continuous variables between preeclampsia cases and controls; and Chi-square tests or Fisher's exact tests were used to compare the categorical variables between the two groups.

NS = not statistically significant.

* Mean ± SD (standard deviation)

The prevalence of moderate depression (score 10–14) was 11.5% among preeclamptic women and 5.3% among normotensive controls (Table 2). The corresponding figures for moderate to severe depression (score 15–19) were 3.5% for cases and 2.1% for controls. Compared with minimally depressed women (score 0–4), those with moderate depression during pregnancy had a 2.6-fold increased risk of preeclampsia (OR = 2.6; 95% CI: 1.4–4.6). The association was attenuated slightly after adjusting for maternal age, parity, and pre-pregnancy body mass index (OR = 2.3; 95% CI: 1.2–4.4). Moderate to severe depression was associated with a 3.2-fold (95% CI: 1.1–9.6) increased risk of preeclampsia after adjusting for confounders. An extremely small number of subjects (two preeclampsia cases and no normotensive controls) with severe depression prohibited further study of this spectrum of depression with preeclampsia risk.
Table 2

Odds Ratios (OR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) for Preeclampsia According to Maternal History of Depression during Pregnancy, Lima, Peru, 2004–2005

Maternal History of Depression (total score)

Preeclampsia Cases (N = 339)

Control Subjects (N = 337)

Unadjusted OR (95% CI)

Adjusted OR (95% CI)

 

n (%)

n (%)

  

Minimal (< 4)

180 (53.1)

213 (63.2)

1.0 (referent)

1.0 (referent)

Mild (5–9)

106 (31.3)

98 (29.1)

1.3 (0.9–1.8)

1.2 (0.9–1.8)

Moderate (10–14)

39 (11.5)

18 (5.3)

2.6 (1.4–4.6)

2.3 (1.2–4.4)

Moderate-severe (15–19)

12 (3.5)

7 (2.1)

2.0 (0.8–5.3)

3.2 (1.1–9.6)

Severe (≥ 20)

2 (0.6)

0 (0.0)

---

---

Missing

0 (0.0)

1 (0.3)

  
 

p-value for trend

 

0.001

0.001

Adjusted by maternal age (continuous), nulliparity (yes vs. no), maternal overweight status (pre-pregnancy body mass index ≤ 26.0 vs. > 26.0 kg/m2).

Table 3 shows associations between the frequency of each of the depressive symptoms and preeclampsia risk. Each depressive symptom was associated with increased preeclampsia risk. However, we did not observe trends in risk across increasing frequency of any of the seven symptoms. For example, women who experienced little interest or pleasure in performing activities during several days of their pregnancies was at 2.5-fold increased risk compared with women who did not report this symptom (OR = 2.5; 95% CI: 1.7–3.7). Women who experienced this symptom for more than half the pregnancy were at roughly similarly increased risk (OR = 2.2; 95% CI: 1.1–4.4).
Table 3

Odds Ratios (OR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) for Preeclampsia According to Maternal History of Depressive Symptoms during Pregnancy as Measured by the PHQ-9 Item Questionnaire, Lima, Peru, 2004–2005

PHQ-9 Items

Preeclampsia Cases (N = 339)

Control Subjects (N = 337)

Unadjusted OR (95% CI)

Adjusted OR (95% CI)

Little interest or pleasure in doing things

   Not at all

185

247

1.0 (referent)

1.0 (referent)

   Several days

128

68

2.5 (1.8–3.6)

2.5 (1.7–3.7)

   More than half the days

26

21

1.7 (0.9–3.0)

2.2 (1.1–4.4)

   Nearly every day

0

1

---

---

Feeling down, depressed, or hopeless

   Not at all

92

141

1.0 (referent)

1.0 (referent)

   Several days

101

40

3.9 (2.5–6.1)

3.7 (2.3–5.9)

   More than half the days

142

153

1.4 (1.0–2.0)

1.3 (0.9–1.9)

   Nearly every day

4

3

2.0 (0.5–9.3)

---

Trouble falling or staying asleep, or sleeping too much

   Not at all

184

220

1.0 (referent)

1.0 (referent)

   Several days

73

36

2.4 (1.6–3.8)

2.4 (1.5–3.8)

   More than half the days

77

79

1.2 (0.8–1.7)

1.2 (0.8–1.8)

   Nearly every day

5

2

3.0 (0.6–15.6)

3.3 (0.6–18.8)

Feeling tired or having little energy

   Not at all

168

206

1.0 (referent)

1.0 (referent)

   Several days

93

58

2.0 (1.3–2.9)

1.8 (1.2–2.7)

   More than half the days

76

71

1.3 (0.9–1.9)

1.3 (0.9–2.0)

   Nearly every day

2

2

1.2 (0.2–8.8)

1.2 (0.2–10.1)

Poor appetite or eating too much

   Not at all

176

227

1.0 (referent)

1.0 (referent)

   Several days

75

51

1.9 (1.3–2.9)

1.8 (1.2–2.8)

   More than half the days

80

57

1.8 (1.2–2.7)

1.7 (1.1–2.6)

   Nearly every day

8

2

5.2 (1.1–24.6)

4.6 (0.9–23.4)

Feeling bad about yourself – or that you are a failure or have let yourself or your family down

   Not at all

262

300

1.0 (referent)

1.0 (referent)

   Several days

58

27

2.5 (1.5–4.0)

2.3 (1.4–3.9)

   More than half the days

17

10

2.0 (0.9–4.3

2.1 (0.9–5.2)

   Nearly every day

2

0

---

---

Trouble concentrating on activities such as reading the newspaper or watching TV

   Not at all

274

302

1.0 (referent)

1.0 (referent)

   Several days

37

18

2.3 (1.3–4.1)

2.4 (1.3–4.6)

   More than half the days

26

16

1.8 (0.9–3.4)

1.8 (0.9–3.7)

   Nearly every day

2

1

2.2 (0.2–24.4)

3.0 (0.2–37.0)

Moving or speaking so slowly that other people could have noticed.

   Not at all

307

323

1.0 (referent)

1.0 (referent)

   Several days

15

7

2.3 (0.9–5.6)

2.0 (0.8–5.4)

   More than half the days

15

6

2.6 (1.0–6.9)

3.2 (1.1–9.1)

   Nearly every day

2

0

---

---

   Missing

0

1

  

Thought that you would be better off dead or hurting yourself in some way

   Not at all

260

276

1.0 (referent)

1.0 (referent)

   Several days

36

37

1.0 (0.6–1.7)

0.9 (0.5–1.5)

   More than half the days

41

24

1.8 (1.1–3.1)

1.8 (0.99–3.3)

   Nearly every day

2

0

---

---

Degree of difficulty of daily living if you had any of above symptoms

   Not difficult at all

175

183

1.0 (referent)

1.00 (referent)

   Somewhat difficult

108

49

2.3 (1.6–3.4)

2.2 (1.4–3.3)

   Very difficult

18

10

1.9 (0.9–4.2)

2.3 (0.9–5.7)

   Extremely difficult

0

0

---

---

   Unknown or N/A

38

95

  

Adjusted by maternal age (continuous), nulliparity (yes vs. no) and maternal pre-pregnancy overweight status

Discussion

Our findings of associations between depression and preeclampsia in Peruvian women are consistent with the only other published report on this topic, based on a study of Finnish women [6]. We report that the individual depression symptoms appear to be generally similar in the strength of their relationship to preeclampsia. We were unable to observe a trend of increased preeclampsia risk with frequency of depressive symptoms because we were limited by the low number of responses in the category of the highest frequency (nearly everyday).

Traditionally, pregnancy is considered a period of well-being and happiness, and was once thought to protect women from depression [10]. However, women of child-bearing age frequently suffer from major depression [11, 12]. The prevalence of moderate to severe depression in our self-report screen module was 15.6% in preeclampsia cases and 7.4% in control subjects. These frequencies are generally consistent with the meta-analysis report by Gaynes et al [12], in which the authors reported that the combined estimates of point prevalence ranged from 8.5% to 11.0% at different times during pregnancy for major and minor depression. The authors summarized data from a large number of studies that used a wide variety of depression screening and diagnostic instruments including the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). Findings across studies were reasonably similar despite different depression assessment approaches and characteristics of study populations.

Our finding of an increased risk of preeclampsia with maternal depression is consistent with numerous reports that focused on the occurrence of cardiovascular diseases in depressed non-pregnant women and men [13, 14]. Clinically diagnosed major depression has been shown to be associated with more than doubling in risk of CVD (pooled OR: 2.54, 95% CI: 2.07–3.10) [13]. Additionally, investigators have reported that depressed mood is associated with increased risks of myocardial infarction, and coronary heart disease (odds ratios ranging from 1.43 to 1.63) [13, 14].

Several potential limitations should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results of this study. First, our analyses are based on cross-sectionally collected data, which may be subject to recall bias. There has been one longitudinal study of Finnish women [6]; however, more longitudinal studies are needed to re-examine the potential causal relation between maternal experience of depression and preeclampsia risk in different populations. Second, we used a depression screening instrument to categorize participants according to depression/depressive symptoms. Participants did not have formal diagnostic examinations. As a result, some misclassification is possible. However, Wulsin et al. [15] reported that the PHQ-9 proved easy to administer to a population of poor, young Honduran women who had never participated in research before and were similar to Peruvian women included in our study. The PHQ-9 results also showed a sensitivity of 77% and a specificity of 100% compared with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSW-IV mood disorder module. In addition, our assessment of maternal depression and depressive symptoms was limited to the duration of the pregnancy. We did not collect information to allow for the accurate sub-classification of mild and severe preeclampsia. This limitation also hindered our capability to further assess the correlation between severity of depression and severity of preeclampsia. Last, although we adjusted for multiple confounding factors, as with all observational studies, we cannot exclude the possibility of some residual confounding.

Associations between depression and increased risk of preeclampsia are biologically plausible. Depression has been associated with hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis hyperactivity [16]. Maternal depression is thought to activate the mother's HPA axis and, in turn, is regulated by peptides derived from the activated HPA axis. Depression may cause an increase in the release of corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH) from the placenta via the actions of catecholamines and cortisol [1720]. Smith and colleagues examined the relationships between mood changes, obstetric experience, and alterations in plasma cortisol, beta-endorphin, and CRH in 97 women [20]. Plasma levels of these hormones were obtained throughout pregnancy, at delivery, and postpartum. Smith and colleagues reported that the prevalence of mood disturbances found in the late antenatal period was higher than the level found in the postnatal period; the prevalence correlated with hormone levels, which peaked in late pregnancy and fell postpartum [20]. These data suggest a role for CRH and the HPA axis in the relationship between antenatal mood states and obstetric events. Depression may be mediated by an altered excretion of vasoactive hormones and other neuroendocrine transmitters. This may in turn cause vasoconstriction and uterine artery resistance and, therefore, elevate blood pressure [6, 19]. Recent evidence also indicates the involvement of pro-inflammatory cytokines in the pathogenesis of major depression. The stress hormones may facilitate inflammation through induction of interleukins (IL) such as IL-1, IL-6, IL-8, IL-18, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and C-reactive protein production [21].

Conclusion

Our results, combined with those reported by others [6], suggest that the risk of preeclampsia is increased in women experiencing depression during pregnancy. Available research suggests that depression is one of the most common complications of pregnancy, and that fairly accurate and feasible screening measures are available [2224]. Longitudinal cohort studies, with prospective clinical assessment of depression, and studies in ethnically and racially diverse populations are warranted.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by awards from the National Institutes of Health (T37 MD001449-09) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Center for Perinatal Studies, Swedish Medical Center
(2)
Health Direction
(3)
Materno Perinatal Institute
(4)
Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, School of Public Health and Community Medicine

References

  1. Nemeroff CB, Musselman DL: Are platelets the link between depression and ischemic heart disease. Am Heart J. 2000, 140 (Suppl): 57-62. 10.1067/mhj.2000.109978.View ArticlePubMed
  2. Rozanski A, Blumenthal JA, Kaplan J: Impact of psychological factors on the pathogenesis of cardiovascular disease and implications for therapy. Circulation. 1999, 99: 2192-217.View ArticlePubMed
  3. Lett HS, Blumenthal JA, Babyak MA, Sherwood A, Strauman T, Robins C, Newman MF: Depression as a risk factor for coronary artery disease: Evidence, mechanisms, and treatment. Psychosom Med. 2004, 66: 305-15. 10.1097/01.psy.0000126207.43307.c0.PubMed
  4. National High Blood Pressure Education Program Working Group on High Blood Pressure in Pregnancy: Report of the National High Blood Pressure Education Program Working Group on Blood Pressure in Pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000, 183 (Suppl): 1-22. 10.1067/mob.2000.107928.
  5. Rodie VA, Freeman DJ, Sattar N, Greer IA: Pre-eclampsia and cardiovascular disease: metabolic syndrome of pregnancy?. Atherosclerosis. 2004, 175: 189-202. 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2004.01.038.View ArticlePubMed
  6. Kurki T, Hiilesmaa V, Raitasalo R, Mattila H, Ylikorkala O: Depression and anxiety in early pregnancy and risk for preeclampsia. Obstet Gynecol. 2000, 95: 487-490. 10.1016/S0029-7844(99)00602-X.View ArticlePubMed
  7. Kroenke K, Spitzer R, Williams J: Validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001, 16: 606-613. 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
  8. Institute of Medicine: Nutrition during Pregnancy. 1990, Washington, DC, National Academy Press
  9. Rothman KJ, Greenland S: Modern Epidemiology. 1998, Lippincott-Raven Publishers, Philadelphia, PA, Second
  10. Buist A: Managing depression in pregnancy. Aust Fam Physician. 2000, 29: 663-667.PubMed
  11. D'Alfonso A, Iovenitti P, Casacchia M, Carta G: Disturbances of humour in postpartum: our experience. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2002, 29: 207-211.PubMed
  12. Gaynes BN, Gavin N, Meltzer-Brody S, Lohr KN, Swinson T, Gartlehner G, Brody S, Miller WC: Perinatal depression: prevalence, screening accuracy, and screening outcomes. Evid Rep Technol Assess. 2005, 119: 1-8.
  13. Van der Kooy K, van Hout H, Marwijk H, Marten H, Stehouwer C, Beekman A: Depression and the risk for cardiovascular diseases: systematic review and meta analysis. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2007, 22: 613-626. 10.1002/gps.1723.View ArticlePubMed
  14. Wassertheil-Smoller S, Shumaker S, Ockene J, Talavera GA, Greenland P, Cochrane B, Robbins J, Aragaki A, Dunbar-Jacob J: Depression and cardiovascular sequelae in postmenopausal women. The Women's Health Initiative (WHI). Arch Intern Med. 2004, 164: 289-298. 10.1001/archinte.164.3.289.View ArticlePubMed
  15. Wulsin L, Somoza E, Heck J: The feasibility of using the Spanish PHQ-9 to screen for depression in primary care in Honduras. Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry. 2002, 4: 191-195.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
  16. Chrousos GP, Torpy DJ, Gold PW: Interactions between the hypothalamicpituitary-adrenal axis and the female reproductive system; clinical implications. Ann Intern Med. 1998, 129: 229-240.View ArticlePubMed
  17. Paarlberg KM, Vingerhoets AJ, Passchier J, Dekker GA, van Geijn HP: Psychosocial factors and pregnancy outcome; a review with emphasis on methodological issues. J Psychosom Res. 1995, 39: 563-595. 10.1016/0022-3999(95)00018-6.View ArticlePubMed
  18. Wadhwa PD, Dunkel-Schetter C, Chicz-DeMet A, Porto M, Sandman CA: Prenatal psychosocial factors and the neuroendocrine axis in human pregnancy. Psychosom Med. 1996, 58: 432-446.View ArticlePubMed
  19. Sandman CA, Wadhwa PD, Chicz-DeMet A, Dunkel-Schetter C, Porto M: Maternal stress, HPA activity, and fetal/infant outcome. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1997, 814: 266-275. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1997.tb46162.x.View ArticlePubMed
  20. Smith R, Cubis J, Brinsmead M, Lewin T, Singh B, Owens P, Chan EC, Hall C, Adler R, Lovelock M: Mood changes, obstetric experience and alterations in plasma cortisol, beta-endorphin and corticotrophin releasing hormone during pregnancy and the puerperium. J Psychosom Res. 1990, 34: 53-69. 10.1016/0022-3999(90)90008-R.View ArticlePubMed
  21. Elenkov IJ, Iezzoni DG, Daly A, Harris AG, Chrousos GP: Cytokine dysregulation, inflammation and well-being. Neuroimmunomodulation. 2005, 12: 255-269. 10.1159/000087104.View ArticlePubMed
  22. Llewellyn AM, Stowe ZN, Nemeroff CB: Depression during pregnancy and the puerperium. J Clin Psychiatry. 1997, 58 (Suppl 15): 26-32.PubMed
  23. Marcus SM, Flynn HA, Blow FC, Barry KL: Depressive symptoms among pregnant women screened in obstetrics settings. J Womens Health (Larchmont). 2003, 12: 373-380. 10.1089/154099903765448880.View Article
  24. Wisner KL, Zarin DA, Holmboe ES, Appelbaum PS, Gelenberg AJ, Leonard HL, Frank E: Risk-benefit decision making for treatment of depression during pregnancy. Am J Psychiatry. 2000, 157: 1933-1940. 10.1176/appi.ajp.157.12.1933.View ArticlePubMed
  25. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6874/7/15/prepub

Copyright

© Qiu et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2007

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement