A systematic review of the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy for treating and preventing perinatal depression.
If I'd rather try therapy than medication, is CBT available to me now that the baby is here, and can I be seen individually rather than in a group?
Reasonable evidence with real limitations. how we score evidence
Caveat on this rating: The author notes that methodological quality varied widely across the included trials, and the pool mixes properly randomised with quasi-randomised studies. The abstract does not report a pooled participant total or the numeric effect sizes, so sample size is recorded as unknown rather than guessed.
Across 40 randomised and quasi-randomised trials of CBT during pregnancy and the first postpartum year, CBT significantly reduced depressive symptoms compared with control conditions in both treatment and prevention trials, and women who received preventive CBT had significantly lower rates of postpartum depressive episodes. Interventions started after the birth outperformed those started during pregnancy, and in prevention trials one-to-one delivery beat group formats.
Worth asking
If I'd rather try therapy than medication, is CBT available to me now that the baby is here, and can I be seen individually rather than in a group?
Source
A systematic review of the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy for treating and preventing perinatal depression. — Sockol LE. (2015)
Reputable peer-reviewed journal
Read the source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2015.01.052
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2015.01.052
How this was scored
- Study design
- Systematic review of randomised trials
- Funding
- Funding not disclosed
- Published in
- Reputable peer-reviewed journal
- Sample size
- not recorded
- 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 67 out of 100 on our published rubric. One caveat travels with that badge: The author notes that methodological quality varied widely across the included trials, and the pool mixes properly randomised with quasi-randomised studies. The abstract does not report a pooled participant total or the numeric effect sizes, so sample size is recorded as unknown rather than guessed. 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?
A systematic review of the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy for treating and preventing perinatal depression. — Sockol LE. (2015). Published in: Reputable peer-reviewed journal. DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2015.01.052. 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 randomised trials. 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.