Effect of the Healthy MOMs Lifestyle Intervention on Reducing Depressive Symptoms Among Pregnant Latinas

Kieffer, Edith C.; Caldwell, Cleopatra Howard; Welmerink, Diana B.; Welch, Kathleen B.; Sinco, Brandy; Guzmán, J. Ricardo

doi:10.1007/s10464-012-9523-9

Cited by 79 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…l 37 trials reporting a universal preventive intervention 61,123,129,146,147,150,[153][154][155][156][157][180][181][182][183][184][185][186][187][197][198][199][200][207][208][209][210][211][212][217][218][219][220][225][226][227][228] l 20 trials reporting a selective preventive intervention 149,[158][159][160][161][162][163][188][189][190][191][192][201]…”

Section: Level Of Preventive Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In total, 15 of the included RCTs were undertaken in the UK, 61,146,149,150,174,177,188,191,[199][200][201]206,213,219,224 31 in the USA, 121,160,161,163,[166][167][168][169][170][171][172][173][178][179][180][181]187,190,192,197,198,202,208,210,212,[214][215][216]222,227,229 18 in Australia, 123,147,159,1...…”

Section: Level Of Preventive Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…psychological (n = 30) 61,121,148, 2. educational (n = 17) [180][181][182][183][184][185][186][187][188][189][190][191][192][193][194][195][196] 3. social support (n = 11) 149,[197][198][199][200][201][202][203][204][205][206] 4. pharmacological agents or supplements (n = 10) [207][208][209][210][211][212][213][214][215][216] 5. midwifery-led interventions (n = 9)…”

Section: Intervention Classmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Characteristics and main outcomes of randomised controlled trials of universal preventive interventions of social support Of the 37 RCTs of universal preventive interventions, four (11%) evaluated a social support intervention, [197][198][199][200] two of which were conducted in the UK. 199,200 Several types of social support were identified including support in labour 197 and self-help support.…”

Section: Universal Preventive Interventions: Social Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…200 Comparisons were made with usual care in specific countries 197,199,200 and educational information. 198 One intervention involved a group session, 200 two studies involved individual sessions 197,199 and one involved both group and individual sessions. 198 One study took place in the home setting.…”

Section: Universal Preventive Interventions: Social Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A systematic review, evidence synthesis and meta-analysis of quantitative and qualitative studies evaluating the clinical effectiveness, the cost-effectiveness, safety and acceptability of interventions to prevent postnatal depression

Morrell

Sutcliffe

Booth

et al. 2016

Health Technol Assess

101

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A systematic review, evidence synthesis and meta-analysis of quantitative and qualitative studies evaluating the clinical effectiveness, the cost-effectiveness, safety and acceptability of interventions to prevent postnatal depression C Jane Morrell, 1 * Paul Sutcliffe, 2 Andrew Booth, 3 John Stevens, 3 This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.ukThe full HTA archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Technology Assessment journalReports are published in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HTA programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. HTA programmeThe HTA programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care.The journal is indexed in NHS Evidence via its abstracts included in MEDLINE and its Technology Assessment Reports inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. HTA research is also an important source of evidence for National Screening Committee (NSC) policy decisions.For more information about the HTA programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 11/95/03. The contractual start date was in November 2012. The draft report began editorial review in August 2014 and was accepted for publication in June 2015. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department ...

show abstract