ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Summary of current evidence for digital health interventions in the screening and management of postpartum depression.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To identify, appraise, summarise, and synthesise current evidence on digital health strategies for postpartum depression (PPD) screening and management, and to develop practice-oriented recommendations to support evidence-informed clinical nursing practice. Methods: Using the 6S evidence hierarchy to guide the retrieval sequence, we performed a wide literature search of clinical decision-support resources, guideline repositories, professional organisations' websites, and major Chinese and international databases from their inception to May 1, 2026. Eligible evidence sources included clinical practice guidelines, evidence summaries, and systematic reviews relevant to digital screening, intervention, follow-up, or continuing care for PPD. Two trained reviewers independently screened the literature, assessed the methodological quality of the publications, extracted evidence statements, and synthesised the recommendations given. This evidence summary followed the reporting specifications of the Fudan University Center for Evidence-based Nursing, which are based on the methodological process of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI), including problem establishment, literature retrieval, literature screening, literature evaluation, evidence synthesis and grading, and formulation of practical recommendations. The study registration number is 'ES202610615'. Results: In total, 16 publications were identified and included in the present study, comprising 2 guidelines, 13 systematic reviews, and 1 evidence summary. From these, 20 key evidence points were extracted and discussed, and 20 evidence statements were generated and then categorised into 5 domains: digital screening and assessment, delivery modalities, intervention components, continuity of care, and implementation issues. Conclusion: Digital health technologies can extend the reach of PPD screening and management, but their implementation should be carefully adapted to address local service capacity, user needs, referral pathways, privacy requirements, and adherence risks. The 20 evidence statements summarised in this review could help guide the development of standardised, continuous, and patient-centred digital management models for PPD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.