Prevalence and incidence of postpartum depression among healthy mothers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
I've never had depression before, so I assumed I wasn't at risk — does that history actually change how closely you'd watch me after the birth?
Reasonable evidence with real limitations. how we score evidence
Caveat on this rating: The incidence estimate has a very wide confidence interval (4-20%), and prevalence differed sharply by region (26% in the Middle East vs 8% in Europe), so the single pooled number hides large real variation. No funding statement was retrievable.
Restricting to 58 studies of 37,294 mothers with no prior history of depression who delivered healthy full-term infants, the prevalence of postpartum depression was 17% (95% CI 15-20%) and the incidence of new cases 12% (95% CI 4-20%). Having never been depressed before offers much less protection than people assume — the rate in this "healthy" group is essentially the same as the all-comers global figure.
Worth asking
I've never had depression before, so I assumed I wasn't at risk — does that history actually change how closely you'd watch me after the birth?
Source
Prevalence and incidence of postpartum depression among healthy mothers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. — Shorey S, Chee CYI, Ng ED, Chan YH, Tam WWS, Chong YS. (2018)
Reputable peer-reviewed journal
Read the source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2018.08.001
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2018.08.001
How this was scored
- Study design
- Systematic review of observational studies
- Funding
- Funding not disclosed
- Published in
- Reputable peer-reviewed journal
- Sample size
- 37,294
- Preregistered
- No
- Conflicts disclosed
- No
- Independent of proponent
- Yes
- Retracted
- No
Read the full scoring rubric, including what it can't tell you.
Published August 19, 2026.
Where we put this study in context
Questions
How strong is the evidence behind this?
Resolv rates this source "moderate evidence". Reasonable evidence with real limitations. It scores 64 out of 100 on our published rubric. One caveat travels with that badge: The incidence estimate has a very wide confidence interval (4-20%), and prevalence differed sharply by region (26% in the Middle East vs 8% in Europe), so the single pooled number hides large real variation. No funding statement was retrievable. The score is calculated from recorded facts about the source — study design, funding, publication venue, sample size, preregistration — not typed in by an editor.
What is the source for this?
Prevalence and incidence of postpartum depression among healthy mothers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. — Shorey S, Chee CYI, Ng ED, Chan YH, Tam WWS, Chong YS. (2018). Published in: Reputable peer-reviewed journal. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2018.08.001. The full source is linked on this page so you can read it yourself.
Who paid for this research, and does that matter?
Study design: Systematic review of observational studies. Funding: Funding not disclosed. The researchers were independent of whoever benefits from the result. Industry sponsorship is one of the most reliably measured biases in medicine, which is why funding carries real weight in the score rather than sitting in a footnote.
Is this medical advice?
This is information to bring to your prescriber, not medical advice and not a reason to change anything on your own. Nothing here is an instruction to stop or reduce a medication. If you are in crisis, call or text 988.
This is information to bring to your prescriber, not medical advice and not a reason to change anything on your own. Nothing here is an instruction to stop or reduce a medication. If you are in crisis, call or text 988.