Talk:Postpartum depression

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Postpartum depression was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
December 28, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed

Depression during and after pregnancy knowledge path[edit]

The Maternal & Child Health Library at Georgetown University (funded by the Maternal & Child Health Bureau at the U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services) has created a guide to authoritative resources on the topic of perinatal and postpartum depression which I believe will add value to the list of external links on Wikipedia's Postpartum depression page. However, the link I attempted to add was automatically removed by a Wikipedia administrator. I invite anyone with expertise on the topic to view the MCH Library knowledge path at and let me know whether or not you agree that this knowledge path would add value to the list of external links. Thank you. Beth DeFrancis, MLS 7/5/2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdefrancis (talkcontribs) 17:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Grandmother->Mother->Newborn Attachment Issues[edit]

An issue to be discussed should be the effects on children of the postpartum depressed mother. Does this depression get sent to the child as he learns about the world? Does postpartum depression become part of that childs socialization?

It affects the attachment. See new section. --Westendgirl 00:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This article focuses too much on environmental and social causes of PPD. It should be revised to include biopsychosocial factors. A quick search of PubMed reveals that hormones, endocrine and other biological factors are at play. The current article makes it appear that environmental factors are largely the cause, which conflicts with more recent research. --Westendgirl 07:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The culprit in all of this is grandmother -> mother attachment. The thing to examine is the birth to childhood relationship between a mother with post partum and her mother. Did the woman with postpartum have a very early birth/childhood experience of neglect and disinterest on the part of their mother? The needed holding, mirroring, breast feeding, and intimate bonding is not possible with mothers who missed this from their mothers and also subconsciously need something from their baby. What does the woman with postpartum subconsciously expect from her new born? If these expectations are not met by the baby or more likely she is simply reminded of and replaying her own trauma at the hands of her mother it would make sense that sudden strong depression occurs because it is a defense against the repressed memory of the mothers own loss. I am basically using the model outlined in The Drama of the Gifted Child by Alice Miller. This most likely explains all the high correlation factors such as breastfeeding and depression. Also this can explain the high correlation in cultures, groups of women, etc. where birth/early childhood and parental relationships tend toward narcissistic parents with babies and children not getting their needs met i.e. being mainly for parental amusement or where neglect and trauma occur. I'm not going to dig up a citation but there has got to be a study establishing this and if not there needs to be one.

You sounds like Freud, who developed his theories about female sexuality by studying only hysterical patients. As a mother with post-partum depression, I find your comments offensive and wholly inaccurate. You can't be bothered to find a citation because no such thing exists. I had no PPD with my first child (boy), but have had a ery difficult time with my second (girl). This, in addition to my migraines, are hormonally induced. What world are you living in where children are born for parental amusement? Also, re:below - it has been very recently that families have become nuclear, rather than extended, and in most countries (other than the US), families and communities work together to raise their children. In this way, societal evolution can mitigate the effects of hormonally-induced PPD.

I think that this would also suggest that nutritional, hormonal issues play a lesser role which would make sense as childbirth has been around for a while and evolution is pretty good at dealing with the chemical/physical stresses and trauma. (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Laurence Karl

Aspartame Link Bogus[edit]

Not only is the information on aspartame uncited, I think it's pretty groundless. A search of PubMed finds no articles investigating a link between aspartame use and postpartum depression. I think it makes the rest of the article's content seem less credible to maintain this tinfoil-hat food-additives 'theory'. I don't know whether it meets the uncited+harmful criteria for deletion, but someone more wikiexperienced than I am should probably have a look and make a decision about cutting out this material... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If it is dubious and there is no citiation it doesn't belong on the page. (talk) 08:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Laurence Karl

Take walk in someone shoes[edit]

This article needs to be developed. At the moment its very one dimmensional. It needs to be more encompassing. Its very much the soical/lifestyle causes, with minor referrence to other factors. It doesnt effectively cover the effects on the family group its very female centrick. This being said it is NPOV.

It needs to expanded from a US cultural (I'm not being negative) article and explore more diverse source material. It needs to expand on treatment methods, diagnostic/treatment approaches from around the world. The external links needs to have a broader international network of links. Gnangarra 15:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

thank you for the article the information and links have in some way helped me Gnangarra

A reason grounded in evolution and psychology is what is needed to fully explain it. Correlating factors such as culture, gender identity, smoking, breast feeding, blaming the mother etc. don't explain anything. (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Laurence Karl

Explanation of revision[edit]

Previously, the article stated that:

"Postpartum depression (also postnatal depression) is a form of major depression for which treatment is widely recommended, and highly effective."

This sentence is somewhat illogical: why would treatment be widely recommended if it were not effective? I therefore edited the sentence to read:

"Postpartum depression (also postnatal depression) is a form of major depression for which treatment is effective and widely recommended."

The previous version then stated:

"Due to the physical, mental, emotional and social stresses on a woman post-birth, combined with the sleep deprivation of parenting a newborn and the plummeting hormonal changes; new mothers are "set up" to experience PND (Post Natal Depression, also known as PPD or Post-Partum Depression)."

However, there is an extensive section on causes that discusses the evidence that supports and refutes many of the assertions in the above sentence. For example, there is virtually no evidence that plummeting levels of hormones cause PPD (note that hormones are not one of the top 13 predictors of PPD). Further, the psychological impact of sleep deprivation has been shown to be different from PPD. Notice that sleep deprivation also does not show up as one of the top 13 predictors of PPD. Depression and sleep deprivation are different phenomena. Childcare stress is an important predictor of PPD, and that is noted as one of the strongest documented predictors in the Causes section, but it is not clear that it should be singled out from the other important predictors (it is number 3 on the list).

The previous version split the evolutionary psychology hypothesis into two sections, but the subheadings "Hypothesised Summary" and "Hypothesized Theory" make little sense. Further, the commentary on the summary section should be moved to its own section. The evolutionary psychology hypothesis section explains the hypothesis; another section can critique the hypothesis, if that is deemed necessary.


Just skimming this article for the first time and I saw this under the Causes heading: "The most significant cause of PPD is holding the (pre-natal) belief that once born, the baby will cause the mother to feel as if they are on a triple dose of Ecstasy and LSD. When this is discovered to be untrue, a spiteful and mopey feeling results. " While I'm no doctor, this sounds absolutely ridiculous and absurd so I removed it.

Explanation of Many Changes Made[edit]

I have made several changes to the PPD entry over the past several days and wanted to leave comments as to my additions/deletions and edits.

  • In an attempt to clarify the difference between PPD and PNP on this site, and in order to be consistent throughout the article, I have changed all use of the acronym PPD to mean Postpartum Depression and all use of the acronym PNP to me Postnatal Psychosis. Additionally, for consistency sake, postpartum depression is used over postnatal depression. "postnatal" in most cases is now reserved for "postnatal psychosis". These are very different conditions, and I think it is important readers gather that at first blush.
  • On that same note, I have made a clearer distinction between Baby Blues, PPD and PNP.
  • I have added academic studies on the correlations between mother's race, social class and sexual orientation to the article under the "risk factors" section and have cleaned up this section, enabling it to flow more smoothly and feel more cohesive.
  • I have also added additional information to the "nutrition" portion of the article. The information there prior to my changes, was uncited and therefore largely conjecture. I did not remove all of the information (and suggestions about omega-3s, protein, hydration, vitamins, etc) but did add a disclaimer that women should speak to their health professionals about dietary changes both during pregnancy and postpartum. I did remove the section on aspartame as it was undocumented, unfounded and purely conjecture.
  • I also removed the somewhat "blame-the-patient" tone of the article, removing words such as "fail" and "limit" as it pertained to women's health and nutrition during pregnancy. This may have led some readers to assume that women somehow give themselves PPD by not taking care of their pregnant bodies.
  • Finally, I added several paragraphs to the "Treatment" section of the article, citing several scholarly articles on how treatment works, how fast, and what types of treatment are available.

Symptoms of PPD and when they may occur have also been added. As have symptoms of PNP and its typical occurrence times.

I encourage feedback on my additions/edits.

Thank you.Whboston 19:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of Politics of PPD[edit]

With the passage of the "Melanie Blocker-Stokes Postpartum Depression Research and Care Act" in October 2007, an update to wikipedia was in order. I have added additional comments on Melanie Blocker-Stokes as well as a section on the Legislation passed and the controversy surrounding it. Sources have been cited. I believe these much needed additions, greatly enhance this entry. Whboston (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


This article reads a little too much like an advice column and needs to be edited accordingly. Specifically, please see the previous edit to mine. (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Legal Repercussions[edit]

Somewhere on this page belongs a discussion of the law enforcement/jurisprudential/child "welfare" response to postpartum depression. At the moment, while the medical response to postpartum depression is relatively modern, the legal response to postpartum depression is somewhere in the 1200's. The authorities stop just short of drilling holes in the mother's head to let the demons out. If a mother evidencing postpartum issues comes in contact with the law, the courts, or the child "welfare" agencies, her children *will* be taken from her and the authorities will do everything they have to (including lie, falsify information, and generate bogus "medical" evidence) to prove that the woman is organically and irreparably mentally damaged. If the woman even considers that she might not be irreparably mentally ill, the court will threaten her and her children with physical and emotional harm until she agrees that she is utterly and untreatably insane. There can be no effective discussion on postpartum issues without a discussion on the excruciating legal and social ramifications imposed on women should they choose to reveal them to anyone. (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're free to put up a new section to the article if you can find anything to back up your ridiculous claims. I highly doubt you will find even a single instance of a court threatening a woman or her children with violence if she does not declare herself insane. In addition, women who reveal having PPD to any health professional, whether a hospital or a psychiatrist, has nothing to fear, as the HIPA act bars health workers from revealing private details of patients' medical history. Your assertion that any woman who comes forward with PPD will immediately lose their children is highly suspect, and needs citation before anyone takes it seriously.

I imagine it would be very difficult for someone with postpartum to deal with the legal system, especially, if the system does not see an alternative support structure and believes that the mother is incapable of taking care of a child. Depressed people by definition cannot meet their own needs and definitely not those of a baby. (talk) 08:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Laurence Karl speaks someone who has never known a mother with post-partum depression. I find your comments and assertions offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to the above comment that depressed mothers cannot meet their babies needs, that is completely incorrect and not based on any research that I've seen. Katstone (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Katherine Stone

Splitting "Postnatal psychosis"[edit]

While I'm not very familiar with the subject, judging from what I read in this article, postnatal psychosis (PNP) bears only a loose connection to postpartum depression. Postpartum depression is a form of depression unlikely to cause any significant problems, while postnatal psychosis can be a serious mental illness with possibly bad consequences and the unability of the mother to control her acts. Also, PNP doesn't fit well in the article outline. Admiral Norton (talk) 11:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. Postpartum psychosis is a psychotic condition whereas postpartum depression does not normally include certain characteristics--delusions, mania, etc.--which are characteristic of the former. I wouldn't say that postpartum depression is unlikely to cause 'significant problems', but the rest of your statement is correct. There's a difference between clinical depression and psychosis. I was in fact disappointed to see that Wikipedia did not have a separate article for postpartum ('postnatal') psychosis. I never would have expected to see them here together. My two cents. -- (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, just a little additional corroboration, perhaps: "Post-partum psychosis is very rare. It is not so much a variety of post-partum depression as it is an entity onto itself. It is characterized by homicidal and suicidal impulses, hallucinations, delusions, disorganized and bizarre thinking." Postpartum psychosis —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I also concur with this distinction. In addition, there is a DSM diagnosis called Brief Psychotic Disorder (with postpartum specifier) that covers this condition from a psychological angle (as opposed to a psychiatric).
Provided there are no objections, will begin migration as soon as possible.Legitimus (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


Okay, there seems to be some serious problems with referencing in this... there is some nasty inline harvard-like referencing going on. It's wikipedia, not an arts degree! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Expert attention[edit]

I think it would be useful for someone with expertise in the area to give the whole article an overhaul: it's accreted lots of unreferenced material and at least one reader has found it sufficiently bad to raise a complaint. I'm also surprised at its B-Class rating: it doesn't read to me as something that doesn't "leave the reader wanting", and the specific referencing criterion is clearly not being met in the several totally unreferenced sections. Perhaps someone from the medicine Wikiproject could take this under their wing? Gonzonoir (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to go through this entire section and help rewrite it, providing all the research references necessary, but I'd need help because I don't write code. Anybody want to help me out? My name is Katherine and I write the most widely-read blog in the US on perinatal mood and anxiety disorders including postpartum depression. I also serve on the board of Postpartum Support International and am guest editor/writer on postpartum depression for such sites as Cafe Mom, PBS' This Emotional Life website and BlogHer. If someone from the WikiPsychology project can help with the coding part, I'll do the legwork. Katstone (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Katherine Stone,, June 29, 2010

Thank you for your interest in this article. I could certainly help with "code". The most time consuming coding is using properly formated references. I use a tool, this one; all you have to do is copy and paste the pubmed number from a pubmed abstract or an isbn number of a medical books etc and it will generate the reference code for you. I have sent you a welcome message and if you run into any problems, please do feel free to contact me.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Looking over the references cited here, I see no reference to an important book by Shapiro, Shapiro, and Paret, "Complex Adoption and Assisted Reproductive Technology", which puts perinatal mood disorders into a much broader context and avoids the exclusive emphasis on biological factors that has become so fashionable because it removes "blame" from depressed mothers.

I will work on this myself when I have time, but that may not be immediately-- so if Katherine or others would like to pick it up, that would be great. I am a developmental psychologist and was a trainer under the New Jersey perinatal mood disorders program, now regrettably cut from the state budget. Jean Mercer (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)..

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Postpartum depression/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 21:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

  • "Among men, in particular new fathers," - do men have "Postpartum depression" when they are not new fathers?
  • "Postpartum depression occurs in women after they have carried a child, usually in the first few months" - this sounds like the pregnant women can experience Postpartum depression after she has been pregnant a few months but hasn't given birth.
  • "begins within 4 weeks and lasting up to 6 months after giving birth. - should be "and lasts"
  • "Plus, most women experience profound lifestyle changes with their first pregnancy, yet most do not suffer PPD." - uncited. The "plus" is informal wording that is not encyclopedic.
  • The structure of the article is unclear. The section headings seem arbitrary, some of the sections containing relatively unimportant information.
  • There are [citation needed] tags that need to be remedied
  • There are statements that need sourcing.
  • Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  • Some statements seem like OR (see below)
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  • Postpartum Exhaustion (PPE) - is there evidence that this is significantly related to Postpartum depression? - if so it needs sourcing
  • PPD and the "baby blues" - is this supposed to be a differential diagnosis?
  • "Nutrition" section seems like it is giving advice.
  • e.g. there is inclusion of a large section based on one study
  • Evolutionary psychological hypothesis - is overemphasized - there are other proposed causes
  • It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
  • It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with captions):
    Some appropriate images could be found for the article.
  • Overall:
  • "Symptoms"
  • This is mostly sourced to The Boston Women's Health Book Collective: Our Bodies Ourselves, pages 489–491, New York: Touchstone Book, 2005 - Why not to the DSM? Why are some of the symptoms unsourced?
  • "Risk factors"
  • This section contains too many statistics that should be summarized.
  • "These factors are known to correlate with PPD. "Correlation" in this case means that, for example, high levels of prenatal depression are associated with high levels of postnatal depression, and low levels of prenatal depression are associated with low levels of postnatal depression. But this does not mean the prenatal depression causes postnatal depression—they might both be caused by some third factor. - this is unnecessarily complex.
  • "In contrast, some factors, such as lack of social support, almost certainly cause postpartum depression. (The causal role of lack of social support in PPD is strongly suggested by several studies" - What is difference about the studies that they "almost certainly" show cause?
  • The table is not useful because it doesn't give the statistical significance of the differences in income. Instead, it leaves it to the reader to draw conclusions.
  • "Causes"
  • Some statements need citations.
  • "Evolutionary psychological hypothesis"
  • This section contains several citations that need to be made into inline citations (the primary style in this article).
  • Section contains Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  • Also, it is very hard to understand. - I think it could be summarized into just a few sentences.
  • "If ancestral mothers did not receive enough support from fathers or other family members, they may not have been able to afford raising the new infant without harming any existing children, or damaging their own health (nursing depletes mothers' nutritional stores, placing the health of poorly nourished women in jeopardy)." - this sentence has no citation and sounds like OR
  • Section contains both Parenthetical referencing and footnotes. Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  • "Effects on the parent-infant relationship"
  • Uses parenthetical citing style and improper bolding and seems like OR.
  • "Attachment study"
  • This section is apparently based on one study and goes in to much detail.
  • Gives WP#UNDUE weight to this one study.
  • "Nutrition"
  • This section seems to much like giving advice.

[I'm going to skip some sections and will address them later, if necessary]

  • Psychosis
  • Section is contradictory.
  • Postpartum psychosis is a separate mental health disorder which is sometimes erroneously referred to as postpartum depression.
  • The opening sentence of this article says: "Postpartum depression (PPD), also called postnatal depression, is a form of clinical depression which can affect women, and less frequently men, typically after childbirth. - clinical depression is linked to Major depressive disorder
  1. Symptoms and signs
  2. Causes
  3. Diagnosis
  4. Prevention
  5. Management
  6. Prognisis
  7. History

  • I will put this on hold for seven days. Please feel free to contact me with questions or suggestions.

MathewTownsend (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional comment

  • Yes, I agree. (I just wore out before I got to that.) Thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • There is a huge amount of work needed on this article to bring it to GA criteria, and no one is working on the article. Therefore, I am failing the nomination. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedicine Peer Review Feedback[edit]

Here is my feedback for this page.

Overall: The strength of this page is organization and clearly a lot of investment from many disciplines.

I think an important aspect to include is how post-partum depression is different than new mothers coping with new stress of a new baby--- and include this in the lead and symptoms/diagnosis. I did not quite get the distinction.

I liked the subsections provided that further divide the causes. and diagnosis and symptoms sections particularly.

Sections to prioritize/ignore: Parent Infant relationship and security--to make language and content more accessible to a lay person....if mentioning all different kinds of coping/not coping strategies give examples of each...who is the audience here?

Causes/Risk Factors Section:--hypertrophied There is a lot going on in this section and it lost me form the vantage person of someone trying to learn about whether they are suffering from this disease. It would help to shrink up all the sections discussing specific studies. It needs some reorganization as material covered earlier is then circled back to and re-expanded...and I'm not sure to what purpose. Explaining correlation after already listing associated risk factors is confusing. I would consider what is really important to further discuss in the section after you list risk factors and delete extra stuff that can be gleaned by going to the reference discussed (beckman, segre et al). If this seems important just try to think how to guide the lay reader through or not through this section.

Holes/Hypertrophied Parts:as above Quality of Cited Works: see comments below

Feedback By Section:

1). Lead: love that you included prevalence of ppd in new fathers feels like it needs maybe one other main point.

2) Diagnosis I like the subsections of criteria and differential diagnosis

Update to the DSM V in the onset section---has the criteria for diagnosis changed with the V?

What are poor coping strategies? This section lost me a bit...try enhancing plain language and think who audience is for this section and purpose of it. WHAT DOES mentioning this list do for the reader? Avoidance coping: denial, behavioral disengagement Problem-focused coping: active coping, planning, positive reframing Support seeking coping: emotional support, instrumental support Venting coping: venting, self-blame

Security: this section would probably freak me out if I was a mother experiencing some of these symptoms thinking of seeking care. Is there a way to talk about safety of mother and safety of child together? And maybe downplaying the whole capacity thing or mentioning it after?

Add citations

Causes: I would research what the strongest evidence is for causes and mention that it really vitamins?

THere is a dead link in this section

Avoid mentioning "Beck's meta-analysis" as a lay reader I have no idea what that means

Risk Factors: Love that you transition to "well causes not ell understood, number of risk factors have been suggested (or shown?) to increase the risk" I guess I might seperate into risk factors that are evident before visiting the doctor: (history of depression before birth) versus more laboratory based things: prolactin levels, oxytocin depletion each of these should have a works cited explain additive effects

Evolutionary: Tone is certainly not clinical but I think the last sentence best speaks to what I got out of it, and I might begin with it instead as the rest of it was confusing to me.

Diagnosis: - Link/cite DSM-5 as have not yet

Screening: - country specific statement about Canada....maybe say for example in one country

Prevention: no source mentioned for statement that exercise and nutrition play a role in prevention

Treatment: sources for ssris being effective? 53. Wrong source...a cholecystitis paper

Epidemiology: 54- Just a study from Pakistan---something that is a primary source showing prevalence was looked at across many countries would be good.

55. Source needs to be checked

Questions about Sources: 1).seeing in the this reputable? 4) Our Bodies Our this accessible?

Wikimedicine Peer Review Response[edit]

Thank you for the feedback, Sarah! The changes you suggested were made, as noted below:

  • Lead: Added sentence in lead suggesting when PPD should be considered over baby blues.
  • Parent Infant relationship and security: Removed information about coping (I felt that it was tangential and confusing), and revised information to make it higher quality and simplified.
  • Causes/Risk Factors Section: Agreed, reduced hypertrophy in this section and tried to organize the information, while minimizing fluff and linking sources rather than expanding upon them.
  • Onset: Addressed what the specific criteria is in DSM-5 for onset of PPD, and simplified language overall in section.
  • Security: Revised information content here to make tone less scary for the potential reader, worked to simplify and cite information in accordance with what is published in DSM-5.
  • Causes: Removed vitamins information, as I am not sure about the validity of this data. Removed mentioning "Beck's meta-analysis" as the lay reader would have no idea what that means.
  • Screening: Statement about Canada as an example now has improved sentence clarity.
  • Treatment: Source for SSRIs being effective previously broken, now fixed

Needed future improvement:

  • Evolutionary: I have no idea what to do with this section. It needs cleaning up and tightening of the language, but it is not my section of expertise, so I will leave it for someone better suited to edit.
  • Citations:
    • Broken links remain in bibliography
    • Diagnosis section needs citation to DSM-5
    • Prevention: source needed for statement that exercise and nutrition play a role in prevention
    • Need to change citations so that sources are only cited once, and then recited, instead of primarily cited multiple different times, despite being a repeat source
    • Epidemiology: One source is just a study from Pakistan-something that is a primary source showing prevalence was looked at across many countries would be good. A replacement source is needed here
    • Lead: Is seeing in the dark source reputable?
    • Signs and Symptoms: Our Bodies Our Selves this source accessible? This could be replaced with a better quality source.


Evidence synopsis in JAMA doi:10.1001/jama.2015.2276 JFW | T@lk 14:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

evolutionary section in causes[edit]

This is based on one very old paper and a pile of primary sources, the presence of which appears to be SYN.

moving here til it can be sourced per MEDRS... if that is even possible.

Evolutionary psychology

Research suggests that PPD is a functional component of human reproductive decision-making, supporting the notion that PPD allows mothers to reduce investment in their offspring when resources are limited.[1]

Human infants require an extraordinary degree of care. Lack of support and insufficient investment from fathers and/or other family members increase the costs that are borne by mothers, whereas infant health problems reduce the evolutionary benefits to be gained.[1] If ancestral mothers did not receive enough support from fathers or other family members, they may not have been able to afford to raise the new infant without harming any existing children, or damaging their own health (nursing depletes mothers' nutritional stores, placing the health of poorly nourished women in jeopardy).

For mothers suffering inadequate social support or other costly and stressful circumstances, negative emotions directed towards a new infant could serve an important evolved function by causing the mother to reduce her investment in an unaffordable infant, thereby reducing her costs. Numerous studies support the correlation between postpartum depression and lack of social support or other childcare stressors.[2][1] Kruckman, using observations from anthropological field work, suggests that supportive rituals and knowledge, if projected to the mother in a meaningful and sincere fashion, can affect the hypothalamus, pituitary and adrenal function and the production of endocrine signal molecules, and reduce the expression of anxiety or panic in postpartum women.[3][4]

Mothers with postpartum depression can unconsciously exhibit fewer positive emotions and more negative emotions toward their children, are less responsive and less sensitive to infant cues, less emotionally available, have a less successful maternal role attainment, and have infants that are less securely attached; and in more extreme cases, some women may have thoughts of harming their children.[2][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] In other words, most mothers with PPD are suffering some kind of cost, like inadequate social support, and consequently are mothering less.[improper synthesis?]

In this view, mothers with PPD do not have a mental illness, but instead cannot afford to take care of the new infant without more social support, more resources, etc. Treatment should therefore focus on helping mothers get what they need.[1]


  1. ^ a b c d Hagen, Edward H (1999). "The Functions of Postpartum Depression". Evolution and Human Behavior. 20 (5): 325–59. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(99)00016-1. 
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Beck-200109 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Kruckman, Laurence (1999). "Rituals as Prevention: The Case of Postpartum Depression". In Heinze, Ruth-Inge. The Nature and Function of Rituals: Fire from Heaven. Greenwood Publishing. pp. 213–28. ISBN 978-0-89789-663-4. 
  4. ^ Kruckman, L. "A Renewed Call for a Biocultural Understanding of Postpartum Depression Etiology," paper presented at the Max Planck Institute International Symposium, "Postpartum Dysphoria & Depression: Anthropological, Ethnopsychiatric & Evolutionary Dimensions" Reimers Stiftung, Bad Homburg, Germany, 2000.
  5. ^ Beck 1995[verification needed]
  6. ^ Cohn, Jeffrey F.; Campbell, Susan B.; Matias, Reinaldo; Hopkins, Joyce (1990). "Face-to-face interactions of postpartum depressed and nondepressed mother-infant pairs at 2 months". Developmental Psychology. 26: 15–23. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.26.1.15. 
  7. ^ Cohn, Jeffrey F.; Campbell, Susan B.; Ross, Shelley (2009). "Infant response in the still-face paradigm at 6 months predicts avoidant and secure attachment at 12 months". Development and Psychopathology. 3 (4): 367–76. doi:10.1017/S0954579400007574. 
  8. ^ Field, Tiffany; Sandberg, David; Garcia, Robert; Vega-Lahr, Nitza; Goldstein, Sheri; Guy, Lisa (1985). "Pregnancy problems, postpartum depression, and early mother–infant interactions". Developmental Psychology. 21 (6): 1152–6. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.21.6.1152. 
  9. ^ Fowles, Eileen R. (January–February 1998). "The relationship between maternal role attainment and postpartum depression". Health Care for Women International. Taylor and Francis. 19 (1): 83–94. doi:10.1080/073993398246601. PMID 9479097. 
  10. ^ Hoffman, Yonit; Drotar, Dennis (1991). "The impact of postpartum depressed mood on mother-infant interaction: Like mother like baby?". Infant Mental Health Journal. 12: 65–80. doi:10.1002/1097-0355(199121)12:1<65::AID-IMHJ2280120107>3.0.CO;2-T. 
  11. ^ Jennings et al. 1999[verification needed]
  12. ^ Murray, Lynne (1991). "Intersubjectivity, object relations theory, and empirical evidence from mother-infant interactions". Infant Mental Health Journal. 12 (3): 219–32. doi:10.1002/1097-0355(199123)12:3<219::AID-IMHJ2280120308>3.0.CO;2-G. 
  13. ^ Murray, Lynne; Cooper, Peter J. (1996). "The impact of postpartum depression on child development". International Review of Psychiatry. 8: 55–63. doi:10.3109/09540269609037817. 

-- Jytdog (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

student note[edit]

Peer Review: Overall great article! You did well explaining what Postpartum depression is and the screening, diagnosis, and preventative measures and in balanced non biased ways. On the other hand, some changes I would make would be to go into more depth when describing signs and symptoms sections because you have put citations by them it might be helpful to state what these sources say about these signs and symptoms. Additionally, another thing I would look out for is possibly consolidating sections such as "Diagnosis" and "Screening" could might be able to be under one heading because they seem similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markeclartin (talkcontribs) 02:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


User:Beccabeckett about your edits here and here -- as I noted in my edit note here, please read WP:LEAD. Really, read it. After you have, if you still think your edits were OK, please reply here and say why. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Pharmacy Students: Proposed Wiki Edits[edit]

After reviewing the contents of this article, we would like to make some improvements in the following sections: My teammates will each tackle a different section. -Expand treatment options (non-pharmacological and pharmacological) - Stephanie Golahi -Clarify differences between different types of postpartum mental disorders - Danielle Fasani -Solidify epidemiology section (parts in intro, parts under epidemiology) - Fontaine Ma -Format the entire article so it reads better for lay personnel - Nicole Andrews -Link more related articles - All of us

Thank You! Woofwoof92 (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey All. Have you read WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS? These are two critical guidelines that will need to be followed.
What do you mean by "Solidify epidemiology section (parts in intro, parts under epidemiology)"? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, part of the pharmacy student team here. We have reviewed the "Identifying reliable resources" & "Manual of Style" guidelines & will follow them. Regarding the epidemiology section, it seems there is more regarding epidemiology in the introduction rather than the actual epidemiology subsection. We will be working to improve both (the subsection in particular), and making sure they are not too duplicative. Thanks. --Golalipop (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
It is okay for both the lead and the body to contain similar information. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

New Research Section[edit]

I noticed that a couple of lines were moved from the "Treatment" section to a new section titled "Research." How does the community feel about this? In general, PPD treatment has not been well developed due to the low amount of conclusions coming out of the limited research available. With the new section, I feel that it's difficult to determine what clinical treatments and guidelines fit more under research, or treatments. Would then, perhaps, the new "research" section better fit under a subsection within the "treatment" section? --Golalipop (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

In general Treatment is for actual treatments (not proposed ones). We put things have been studied in the past and don't work, as well as new proposed methods, in Research. That section looks backwards as well as forwards. Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Depression has two main treatments, meds and counselling. I have grouped the too. iCBT is supported by a meta analysis and therefore fits well under counselling. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Why are you putting unproven things like fish oil in treatment? And the iCBT thing is PROMO for something that is not real world yet (yes studied to the extent there is a review but that is different than clinical use as you know). Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
We often include statements that alt med does not work under treatment. These are things that people use and explaining that they do not work when supported by high quality sources should not be under research.
Restoring bolding and caps to a title is also not cool.
With respect to "computerised CBT" it is supported by NICE guidelines such as this[1] so it is a little past the only research stage. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Promotional garbage. Most unlike you. Whatever, I will unwatch this rather than waste more time on bullshit. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
We have reviews and position statements from major medical resources. Therefore qualifies per MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

Overall, edits were great. They made the article easier to read and flowed well with the page layout. Your group also added a nice range of edits from small edits to help with clarity to larger ones that added new and valuable information. All edits reflected a neutral point of view. Great job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.hernandez1991 (talkcontribs) 16:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Question 2

The recent edits made seem to have added more substance to this article. Although the article already had valuable information the edits in the medication section seem to have added more utility to the article. I appreciated how the medication section had many citations to back up its findings. The sources seem to be freely accessible (even though they may not seem so at first). I noticed that some sources take you to a portal that requires you click on a link to see the source; I do not think that this is a problem, just FYI. Keep up the good work, this is definitely a great place to start research on PPD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A139053 (talkcontribs) 21:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Question 4

The edits that were made are clear and add valuable information about postpartum depression. I liked that the group made some smaller edits including grammatical errors, as well as larger ones on topics that seem important to understanding treatments for postpartum depression. After reviewing the sources, I did not find any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations. Each section that was added was paraphrased in the author's own words from literary sources. Good job on the edits! Klwymer (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Diagnosis Section - Notes

I originally volunteered to edit this section, but after going through the DSM-V and other online sources, I found this section was actually already very accurate and well-written. Therefore, I only made a few minor additions to help clarify the ideas that were already presented. I feel I contributed equally within my group. -D. FasaniDfasani (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I volunteered to edit the article page as an entirety (ie. format, sentence structure, grammar, clarity, etc). Although it appears I only made minor edits throughout, I feel it improved the overall quality of the article as a sum and a whole. In addition, I expanded on the "Society and Culture" section which I feel is a very relevant topic now and can still be strengthened in the future year based on the health agenda. I believe I contributed equally with my group. Ntandnak (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Epidemiology - Notes I made some additions to the "Epidemiology" section, using the DSM-V guideline as my main source. Then I made some changes to sentence structure/grammar towards the top (also about epidemiology). I believe my edits and additions have improved the clarity of this article. Moreover, readers will be more aware of the DSM-V guidelines and can refer to that if they want to read more about this mood disorder. I feel like I contributed equally within my group. - F. Woofwoof92 (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Postpartum depression. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)