Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rngvg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T21:20:26.400Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Efficacy of psychological treatments for perinatal depression and anxiety: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2026

Ling Li Leng
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
Wenhan Xiao*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
Xiye He
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
Teng Wang
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
Kaida Ning
Affiliation:
Peng Cheng Laboratory, Shenzhen, China
*
Correspondence: Wenhan Xiao. Email: wenhanxiao@zju.edu.cn
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Perinatal depression and anxiety affect one-fifth of women globally, yet the comparative efficacy of psychological treatments remains inadequately synthesised.

Aims

To compare short- and long-term efficacy of psychological treatments for clinically significant perinatal depression and anxiety using Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

Method

PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE and PsycInfo were searched from January 1990 to January 2025. Eligible RCTs included pregnant or postpartum women (≤12 months) with clinically significant depression or anxiety. Primary outcomes were post-intervention symptom severity, secondary outcomes were symptoms at the longest follow-up (3–12 months). Standardised mean differences (s.m.d.) with 95% credible intervals (CrI) were estimated. Evidence certainty was evaluated using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis framework.

Results

78 RCTs (11 345 participants) were included. Cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) demonstrated consistent efficacy for post-intervention perinatal depression (s.m.d.: −0.55, 95% CrI [−0.77, −0.33]; moderate confidence) and anxiety (−0.54, [−1.00, −0.06]; moderate) compared with treatment-as-usual (TAU), with sustained effects for depression. Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT; −0.65, [−1.09, −0.20]; low) and mindfulness-based intervention (MBI; −2.02, [−2.65, −1.42]; low) also outperformed TAU for short-term depression. For anxiety, behavioural therapy (−1.02, [−1.96, −0.07]; low) and MBI (−1.67, [−2.55, −0.84]; very low) also showed short-term superiority over TAU, whereas only behavioural therapy showed a sustained effect. Heterogeneity was partly explained by participant age, country income level and study risk of bias.

Conclusions

This network meta-analysis identifies CBT as the most consistently supported psychological treatment for perinatal depression and anxiety. IPT, MBI and behavioural therapy show preliminary promise but require confirmation via rigorously designed trials with extended follow-ups.

Information

Type
Review
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal College of Psychiatrists
Figure 0

Table 1 Definition of treatments and controlsTable 1 long description.

Figure 1

Fig. 1 Fig. 1 long description.Diagram for the search and selection process.

Figure 2

Fig. 2 Fig. 2 long description.Network meta-analysis structure plots for perinatal depression and anxiety. Note: Each node represents a specific psychological treatment, with node size proportional to the number of participants involved. Line thickness indicates the number of studies comparing the two interventions.

Figure 3

Table 2 Relative effects for perinatal depressionTable 2 long description.

Figure 4

Table 3 Relative effects for perinatal anxietyTable 3 long description.

Figure 5

Table 4 Meta-regression for short-term perinatal depression and anxietyTable 4 long description.

Supplementary material: File

Leng et al. supplementary material 1

Leng et al. supplementary material
Download Leng et al. supplementary material 1(File)
File 2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Leng et al. supplementary material 2

Leng et al. supplementary material
Download Leng et al. supplementary material 2(File)
File 7.7 MB

This journal is not currently accepting new eletters.

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.