| Literature DB >> 32138708 |
Xiuxiu Li1, Rui Gao1, Xiaowei Dai2, Hong Liu1, Jinxin Zhang3, Xuemei Liu1, Dongmei Si1, Te Deng1, Wei Xia1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most studies have showed that maternal depression is associated with pregnancy complications. However, there were limited evidences in Chinese population. We examined the associations of antenatal depression symptoms with pregnancy outcomes, especially for low birth weight.Entities:
Keywords: Antenatal depression; Low birth weight; Preterm birth; Small for gestational age
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32138708 PMCID: PMC7059656 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-020-2842-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ISSN: 1471-2393 Impact factor: 3.007
Demographic characteristics of women with and without antenatal depression
| Not depressed (EPDS< 12) | Depressed (EPDS≥12) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD or % | Number | Mean ± SD or % | Number | ||
| EPDS score | 6.5 ± 2.9 | 1109 | 13.8 ± 2.0 | 265 | < 0.001 |
| Age, years | |||||
| < 25 | 4.3 | 48 | 7.8 | 21 | 0.030 |
| 25–34 | 78.6 | 872 | 78.7 | 211 | |
| ≥ 35 | 17.0 | 189 | 13.4 | 36 | |
| Education | |||||
| Under and middle school | 3.2 | 36 | 3.7 | 10 | 0.901 |
| high school | 49.7 | 551 | 48.9 | 131 | |
| College or University | 42.1 | 467 | 43.3 | 116 | |
| Post-graduated and higher | 5.0 | 55 | 4.1 | 11 | |
| Household registration type | |||||
| Shenzhen residence | 39.0 | 432 | 30.6 | 82 | 0.032 |
| Temporary residence | 58.4 | 648 | 67.2 | 180 | |
| Floating household | 2.6 | 29 | 2.2 | 6 | |
| Pre-pregnancy BMI,(kg/m2) | |||||
| < 18.5 | 17.9 | 195 | 24.9 | 65 | 0.076 |
| 18.5–23.9 | 69.5 | 756 | 63.2 | 165 | |
| 24–27.9 | 10.9 | 118 | 10.7 | 28 | |
| > 28 | 1.7 | 18 | 1.1 | 3 | |
| Passive smoking, Yes | 26.0 | 288 | 28.0 | 75 | 0.773 |
| Parity | |||||
| Primigravida | 64.7 | 718 | 67.2 | 180 | 0.455 |
| Multigravida | 35.3 | 391 | 32.8 | 88 | |
| High risk pregnancy, Yes | 49.1 | 544 | 52.2 | 140 | 0.349 |
Neonatal outcomes of women with and without antenatal depression
| Not depressed (EPDS< 12) | Depressed (EPDS≥12) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | Number | % | Number | ||
| Newborn gender, male | 51.8 | 574 | 57.8 | 155 | 0.074 |
| Preterm birth | 4.2 | 47 | 6.7 | 18 | 0.086 |
| Low birth weight | 2.0 | 22 | 4.5 | 12 | 0.018 |
| Macrosomiaa | 5.2 | 58 | 5.6 | 15 | 0.810 |
| Small for gestational ageb | 5.2 | 58 | 3.4 | 9 | 0.201 |
| Large for gestational agec | 4.2 | 47 | 4.9 | 13 | 0.659 |
aMacrosomia was that birth weight was heavier than 4000 g
bSmall for gestational age (SGA) was that birth weight was lower than the 10th percentile of the average weight of the same gestational age
cLarge for gestational age (SGA) was that birth weight was greater than the 10th percentile of the average weight of the same gestational age
Odds ratios and 95% CI for the risk of LBW by antenatal depression symptoms
| NBW | LBW | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 1 | Model 2 | |
| EPDS | 1.00 | 1.00 | 2.39 (1.17,4.89) | 2.05 (1.12,4.64) |
1Model1 was not adjusted
2Model2 was adjusted for pre-pregnancy BMI, neonate gender, maternal age, degree of education, high-risk women and parity
Odds ratios (95%CI) for depression symptoms on low birth weight stratified by maternal age, residence type, pre-pregnancy BMI and newborn gender
| Model 1 | Model 2 | |
|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |
| Maternal agea | ||
| < 25 | 4.9 (0.4–57.8) | 14.5 (0.6–327.8) |
| ≥ 25 | 2.1 (0.9–4.4) | 2.0 (0.9–4.4) |
| Residence typeb | ||
| Shenzhen residence | 2.1 (0.5–8.0) | 2.2 (0.6–8.7) |
| Temporary residence | 2.3 (1.0–5.4) | 2.4 (1.1–5.6) |
| Pre-pregnancy BMIc | ||
| < 25 | 1.9 (0.9–4.3) | 1.8 (0.8–4.3) |
| ≥ 25 | 6.8 (1.2–37.4) | 2.8 (0.1–70.0) |
| Newborn genderd | ||
| Boy | 3.6 (1.4–9.0) | 2.0 (0.7–6.1) |
| Girl | 1.1 (0.3–4.1) | 1.3 (0.3–5.7) |
aModel 2 was not adjusted maternal age and adjusted for pre-pregnancy BMI, neonate gender, degree of education, high-risk women and parity
bModel 2 was not adjusted residence type and adjusted for pre-pregnancy BMI, neonate gender, maternal age, degree of education, high-risk women and parity
cModel 2 was not adjusted pre-pregnancy BMI and adjusted for neonate gender, maternal age,degree of education, high-risk women and parity
dModel 2 was not adjusted newborn gender and adjusted for pre-pregnancy BMI, maternal age, degree of education, high-risk women and parity