Kerry Evans1, C Jane Morrell1, Helen Spiby1,2. 1. School of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. 2. School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Abstract
AIM: To assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for pregnant women with symptoms of mild to moderate anxiety. BACKGROUND: Many pregnant women experience mild to moderate symptoms of anxiety and could benefit from additional support. Non-pharmacological interventions have been suggested for use during pregnancy. DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Randomized controlled trials published since 1990, identified from electronic databases: Medline; CINAHL; Maternity and Infant Care; PsycINFO; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; CENTRAL; EMBASE; Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; Social Sciences Citation Index; ASSIA; HTA Library; Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence-Based Practice database; Allied and Complementary Medicine. REVIEW METHODS: Conducted according to the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination procedure. Papers were screened (N = 5,222), assessed for eligibility (N = 57) and selected for inclusion (N = 25). The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias was used. Papers were assessed for clinical and statistical heterogeneity and considered for meta-analysis. Descriptive analysis of the data was conducted. RESULTS: Psychological, mind-body, educational and supportive interventions were delivered individually and to groups of pregnant women over single or multiple sessions. The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory was the most commonly used anxiety measure. In 60% of studies there were fewer than 40 participants. Meta-analysis of three studies indicated no observed beneficial effect in the reduction of anxiety. CONCLUSION: There was insufficient evidence from which to draw overall conclusions regarding the benefit of interventions. Results were predominantly based on small samples. Many papers provided an inadequate description of methods which prevented a full assessment of methodological quality.
AIM: To assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for pregnant women with symptoms of mild to moderate anxiety. BACKGROUND: Many pregnant women experience mild to moderate symptoms of anxiety and could benefit from additional support. Non-pharmacological interventions have been suggested for use during pregnancy. DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Randomized controlled trials published since 1990, identified from electronic databases: Medline; CINAHL; Maternity and Infant Care; PsycINFO; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; CENTRAL; EMBASE; Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; Social Sciences Citation Index; ASSIA; HTA Library; Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence-Based Practice database; Allied and Complementary Medicine. REVIEW METHODS: Conducted according to the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination procedure. Papers were screened (N = 5,222), assessed for eligibility (N = 57) and selected for inclusion (N = 25). The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias was used. Papers were assessed for clinical and statistical heterogeneity and considered for meta-analysis. Descriptive analysis of the data was conducted. RESULTS: Psychological, mind-body, educational and supportive interventions were delivered individually and to groups of pregnant women over single or multiple sessions. The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory was the most commonly used anxiety measure. In 60% of studies there were fewer than 40 participants. Meta-analysis of three studies indicated no observed beneficial effect in the reduction of anxiety. CONCLUSION: There was insufficient evidence from which to draw overall conclusions regarding the benefit of interventions. Results were predominantly based on small samples. Many papers provided an inadequate description of methods which prevented a full assessment of methodological quality.
Authors: Siu-Man Ng; Ling Li Leng; Ka Po Chan; Hay-Ming Herman Lo; Albert Yeung; Shuang Lu; Amenda Wang; Hui Yun Li Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-07-08 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Lianne P Hulsbosch; Ivan Nyklíček; Eva S Potharst; Margreet Meems; Myrthe G B M Boekhorst; Victor J M Pop Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 3.007