
Chinese General Practice ›› 2023, Vol. 26 ›› Issue (14): 1775-1782.DOI: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2022.0726
Special Issue: 精神卫生最新文章合辑; 心理健康最新文章合辑
• Evidence-based Medicine • Previous Articles Next Articles
Received:2022-08-26
Revised:2023-01-10
Published:2023-05-15
Online:2023-02-03
Contact:
LI Yuhong
通讯作者:
李玉红
作者简介:基金资助:
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.chinagp.net/EN/10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2022.0726
| 第一作者 | 发表时间(年) | 国家 | 产后调查时间点 | PPD测量工具 | 人格测量工具 | 纳入变量 | 研究设计 | 样本量(例) | 质量评价(分) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MALISZEWSKA[ | 2016 | 波兰 | 1周 | EPDS≥13分 | NEO-FFI | N、E、O、A、C | 横断面研究 | 101 | 8 |
| MALISZEWSKA[ | 2017 | 波兰 | 4~8周 | EPDS≥13分 | NEO-FFI | N、E、O、A、C | 横断面研究 | 387 | 8 |
| DUDEK[ | 2014 | 波兰 | 1周 | EPDS≥13分 | NEO-FFI | N、E、O、A、C | 横断面研究 | 344 | 8 |
| SAISTO[ | 2001 | 芬兰 | 2~3个月 | BDI-Ⅱ | NEO-PI | N | 队列研究 | 211 | 7 |
| MARTIN-SANTOS[ | 2012 | 西班牙 | 8周、32周 | EPDS>9、DIGS | EPQ | N | 队列研究 | 1 407 | 7 |
| 马琳[ | 2007 | 中国 | 6周 | EPDS≥9分 | EPQ | N、E | 横断面研究 | 237 | 8 |
| ILIADIS[ | 2015 | 瑞典 | 6周、6个月 | EPDS≥12分 | SSP | N、A | 队列研究 | 975 | 7 |
| IMSIRAGIC[ | 2014 | 克罗地亚 | 3~5 d、6~9周 | EPDS≥9 | NEO-FFI | N、E、O、A、C | 队列研究 | 262 | 7 |
| VERKERK[ | 2005 | 荷兰 | 3、6、12个月 | RDC | CPI | N | 队列研究 | 277 | 7 |
| CHANG[ | 2014 | 中国 | 产后 | CES-D | MPI | N | 病例对照研究 | 213 | 8 |
| TIAN[ | 2012 | 中国 | 产后 | DSM-Ⅳ | EPQ | N | 病例对照研究 | 4 567 | 8 |
| GELABERT[ | 2012 | 西班牙 | 6个月 | DSM-Ⅳ | EPQ | N、E | 病例对照研究 | 237 | 8 |
| 何伟健[ | 2018 | 中国 | 6个月 | PDSS≥60分 | EPQ | N | 病例对照研究 | 380 | 6 |
| THIO[ | 2001 | 新西兰 | 产后 | EPDS>12分 | EPQ | N | 横断面研究 | 225 | 7 |
| AKMAN[ | 2007 | 土耳其 | 6周 | SCID-Ⅰ | SCID-Ⅱ | AV、OC、D | 队列研究 | 302 | 6 |
| APTER[ | 2012 | 法国 | 12周 | MADRS | SIDP-Ⅳ | AV、OC、D | 队列研究 | 109 | 6 |
| DENNIS[ | 2004 | 哥伦比亚 | 1、4、8周 | EPDS>12分 | VPSQ | V | 队列研究 | 498 | 5 |
| GELABERT[ | 2011 | 西班牙 | 8周 | DIGS | VPSQ | V | 队列研究 | 302 | 6 |
| 金三丽[ | 2006 | 中国 | 6周 | EPDS≥10分 | VPSQ | V | 队列研究 | 349 | 5 |
Table 1 Basic characteristics and quality evaluation results of included studies
| 第一作者 | 发表时间(年) | 国家 | 产后调查时间点 | PPD测量工具 | 人格测量工具 | 纳入变量 | 研究设计 | 样本量(例) | 质量评价(分) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MALISZEWSKA[ | 2016 | 波兰 | 1周 | EPDS≥13分 | NEO-FFI | N、E、O、A、C | 横断面研究 | 101 | 8 |
| MALISZEWSKA[ | 2017 | 波兰 | 4~8周 | EPDS≥13分 | NEO-FFI | N、E、O、A、C | 横断面研究 | 387 | 8 |
| DUDEK[ | 2014 | 波兰 | 1周 | EPDS≥13分 | NEO-FFI | N、E、O、A、C | 横断面研究 | 344 | 8 |
| SAISTO[ | 2001 | 芬兰 | 2~3个月 | BDI-Ⅱ | NEO-PI | N | 队列研究 | 211 | 7 |
| MARTIN-SANTOS[ | 2012 | 西班牙 | 8周、32周 | EPDS>9、DIGS | EPQ | N | 队列研究 | 1 407 | 7 |
| 马琳[ | 2007 | 中国 | 6周 | EPDS≥9分 | EPQ | N、E | 横断面研究 | 237 | 8 |
| ILIADIS[ | 2015 | 瑞典 | 6周、6个月 | EPDS≥12分 | SSP | N、A | 队列研究 | 975 | 7 |
| IMSIRAGIC[ | 2014 | 克罗地亚 | 3~5 d、6~9周 | EPDS≥9 | NEO-FFI | N、E、O、A、C | 队列研究 | 262 | 7 |
| VERKERK[ | 2005 | 荷兰 | 3、6、12个月 | RDC | CPI | N | 队列研究 | 277 | 7 |
| CHANG[ | 2014 | 中国 | 产后 | CES-D | MPI | N | 病例对照研究 | 213 | 8 |
| TIAN[ | 2012 | 中国 | 产后 | DSM-Ⅳ | EPQ | N | 病例对照研究 | 4 567 | 8 |
| GELABERT[ | 2012 | 西班牙 | 6个月 | DSM-Ⅳ | EPQ | N、E | 病例对照研究 | 237 | 8 |
| 何伟健[ | 2018 | 中国 | 6个月 | PDSS≥60分 | EPQ | N | 病例对照研究 | 380 | 6 |
| THIO[ | 2001 | 新西兰 | 产后 | EPDS>12分 | EPQ | N | 横断面研究 | 225 | 7 |
| AKMAN[ | 2007 | 土耳其 | 6周 | SCID-Ⅰ | SCID-Ⅱ | AV、OC、D | 队列研究 | 302 | 6 |
| APTER[ | 2012 | 法国 | 12周 | MADRS | SIDP-Ⅳ | AV、OC、D | 队列研究 | 109 | 6 |
| DENNIS[ | 2004 | 哥伦比亚 | 1、4、8周 | EPDS>12分 | VPSQ | V | 队列研究 | 498 | 5 |
| GELABERT[ | 2011 | 西班牙 | 8周 | DIGS | VPSQ | V | 队列研究 | 302 | 6 |
| 金三丽[ | 2006 | 中国 | 6周 | EPDS≥10分 | VPSQ | V | 队列研究 | 349 | 5 |
Figure 2 Forest plot of the effects of neuroticism,extraversion,vulnerability,obsessive-compulsive personality and dependent personality on PPD(Random-effect model)
| 研究项目 | 分组 | 纳入篇数(篇) | 异质性(I2) | PI | OR(95%CI) | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 地区 | 欧洲 | 10[ | 85.80% | <0.001 | 1.34(1.18,1.52) | 0.851 |
| 亚洲 | 4[ | 91.30% | <0.001 | 1.32(1.18,1.48) | ||
| PPD测量工具 | EPDS | 8[ | 84.30% | <0.001 | 1.23(1.11,1.36) | 0.090 |
| 其他 | 7[ | 92.20% | <0.001 | 1.50(1.25,1.79) | ||
| 神经质测量工具 | NEO-FFI | 5[ | 56.70% | 0.055 | 1.22(1.10,1.35) | 0.221 |
| EPQ | 6[ | 95.00% | <0.001 | 1.30(1.17,1.45) | ||
| 其他 | 3[ | 89.40% | <0.001 | 2.60(1.00,6.76) | ||
| EPDS阈值 | EPDS≥12分 | 5[ | 81.00% | <0.001 | 1.71(1.22,2.41) | 0.028 |
| EPDS≥9分 | 3[ | 89.40% | <0.001 | 1.14(1.02,1.28) | ||
| PPD时间 | <产后1周 | 3[ | 40.20% | 0.188 | 1.13(1.03,1.24) | 0.008 |
| 产后2~12周 | 7[ | 88.30% | <0.001 | 1.33(1.13,1.57) | ||
| ≥产后13周 | 5[ | 95.00% | <0.001 | 2.22(1.38,3.58) | ||
| 研究设计 | 横断面 | 5[ | 66.40% | 0.018 | 1.29(1.14,1.45) | 0.604 |
| 队列 | 5[ | 86.30% | <0.001 | 1.42(1.10,1.82) | ||
| 病例对照 | 4[ | 92.70% | <0.001 | 1.41(1.20,1.67) |
Table 2 Subgroup analysis of the relationship between neuroticism and PPD
| 研究项目 | 分组 | 纳入篇数(篇) | 异质性(I2) | PI | OR(95%CI) | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 地区 | 欧洲 | 10[ | 85.80% | <0.001 | 1.34(1.18,1.52) | 0.851 |
| 亚洲 | 4[ | 91.30% | <0.001 | 1.32(1.18,1.48) | ||
| PPD测量工具 | EPDS | 8[ | 84.30% | <0.001 | 1.23(1.11,1.36) | 0.090 |
| 其他 | 7[ | 92.20% | <0.001 | 1.50(1.25,1.79) | ||
| 神经质测量工具 | NEO-FFI | 5[ | 56.70% | 0.055 | 1.22(1.10,1.35) | 0.221 |
| EPQ | 6[ | 95.00% | <0.001 | 1.30(1.17,1.45) | ||
| 其他 | 3[ | 89.40% | <0.001 | 2.60(1.00,6.76) | ||
| EPDS阈值 | EPDS≥12分 | 5[ | 81.00% | <0.001 | 1.71(1.22,2.41) | 0.028 |
| EPDS≥9分 | 3[ | 89.40% | <0.001 | 1.14(1.02,1.28) | ||
| PPD时间 | <产后1周 | 3[ | 40.20% | 0.188 | 1.13(1.03,1.24) | 0.008 |
| 产后2~12周 | 7[ | 88.30% | <0.001 | 1.33(1.13,1.57) | ||
| ≥产后13周 | 5[ | 95.00% | <0.001 | 2.22(1.38,3.58) | ||
| 研究设计 | 横断面 | 5[ | 66.40% | 0.018 | 1.29(1.14,1.45) | 0.604 |
| 队列 | 5[ | 86.30% | <0.001 | 1.42(1.10,1.82) | ||
| 病例对照 | 4[ | 92.70% | <0.001 | 1.41(1.20,1.67) |
| 纳入变量 | 固定效应模型 | 随机效应模型 |
|---|---|---|
| 神经质 | 1.16(1.14,1.17) | 1.30(1.20,1.40) |
| 外向性 | 0.91(0.86,0.95) | 0.86(0.77,0.97) |
| 易感性 | 1.29(1.23,1.36) | 1.39(1.10,1.76) |
| 开放性 | 0.94(0.90,0.98) | 0.94(0.90,0.98) |
| 责任心 | 0.97(0.92,1.02) | 0.97(0.94,1.01) |
| 宜人性 | 0.99(0.94,1.04) | 0.99(0.95,1.04) |
| 强迫性 | 5.67(2.43,13.21) | 7.74(0.51,117.76) |
| 依赖性 | 7.26(2.60,20.24) | 7.11(1.62,31.14) |
| 回避性 | 6.27(2.55,15.40) | 6.27(2.55,15.40) |
Table 3 Sensitivity analysis of the relationship between different personality traits and PPD
| 纳入变量 | 固定效应模型 | 随机效应模型 |
|---|---|---|
| 神经质 | 1.16(1.14,1.17) | 1.30(1.20,1.40) |
| 外向性 | 0.91(0.86,0.95) | 0.86(0.77,0.97) |
| 易感性 | 1.29(1.23,1.36) | 1.39(1.10,1.76) |
| 开放性 | 0.94(0.90,0.98) | 0.94(0.90,0.98) |
| 责任心 | 0.97(0.92,1.02) | 0.97(0.94,1.01) |
| 宜人性 | 0.99(0.94,1.04) | 0.99(0.95,1.04) |
| 强迫性 | 5.67(2.43,13.21) | 7.74(0.51,117.76) |
| 依赖性 | 7.26(2.60,20.24) | 7.11(1.62,31.14) |
| 回避性 | 6.27(2.55,15.40) | 6.27(2.55,15.40) |
| [1] |
|
| [2] |
|
| [3] |
|
| [4] |
|
| [5] |
|
| [6] |
|
| [7] |
|
| [8] |
|
| [9] |
|
| [10] |
|
| [11] |
|
| [12] |
|
| [13] |
|
| [14] |
|
| [15] |
|
| [16] |
|
| [17] |
|
| [18] |
|
| [19] |
|
| [20] |
|
| [21] |
|
| [22] |
|
| [23] |
|
| [24] |
|
| [25] |
|
| [26] | |
| [27] |
|
| [28] |
|
| [29] |
|
| [30] |
|
| [31] |
何伟健,方俊,李丽美,等. 生育二胎妇女产后6个月抑郁症及相关因素调查[J]. 临床精神医学杂志,2018,28(1):51-53. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1005-3220.2018.01.018.
|
| [32] |
|
| [33] |
|
| [34] | |
| [35] |
|
| [36] |
|
| [37] |
马郑豫,苏志强,张大均. 抑郁素质—压力理论在童年期的适用性:一项纵向研究[J]. 中国临床心理学杂志,2018,26(5):960-965. DOI:10.16128/j.cnki.1005-3611.2018.05.027.
|
| [38] |
|
| [39] |
张红梅,徐英,李一云,等. 生活事件、社会支持、个性因素及产前心理状态对产后抑郁症的影响[J]. 中国慢性病预防与控制,2007,15(4):321-325. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1004-6194.2007.04.007.
|
| [40] |
|
| [41] |
|
| [42] |
|
| [43] |
宋玉萍,孙宏伟,宋瑞荣,等. 产妇人格与应对方式对产后抑郁情绪的影响[J]. 中华行为医学与脑科学杂志,2010,19(11):994-995. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-6554.2010.11.013.
|
| [44] |
|
| [45] |
|
| [46] |
高成阁,王赞利,纪术茂,等. 缓解期重性抑郁与心境恶劣患者人格特征及人格障碍研究[J]. 中国临床心理学杂志,2003,11(3):176-179. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1005-3611.2003.03.006.
|
| [47] |
|
| [48] | |
| [49] |
郭刚军,马慧. 大学生抑郁情绪与人格的关系:应对方式的中介和调节效应[J]. 中国健康心理学杂志,2022,30(3):426-431. DOI:10.13342/j.cnki.cjhp.2022.03.022.
|
| [50] |
凌宇,杨娟,蚁金瑶. 沉思在高中生神经质人格与抑郁症状关系中的中介效应[J]. 中国临床心理学杂志,2013,21(4):605-608. DOI:10.16128/j.cnki.1005-3611.2013.04.004.
|
| [51] |
圣锦涛,王金辉. 青少年神经质人格与抑郁的关系:移情的中介作用[J]. 中国健康心理学杂志,2015,23(10):1444-1447. DOI:10.13342/j.cnki.cjhp.2015.10.002.
|
| [52] |
|
| [1] | XIAO Yao, LIN Xiuwen, WU Qianfang, LING Xin, LIANG Yiling, LIU Jialing, SHI Lei. Health Utility Values in Chinese Patients with Multiple Chronic Diseases Based on EQ-5D: a Meta Analysis [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(11): 1463-1472. |
| [2] | LIU Shan, LI Fei, MENG Haodong, YANG Juan, QIAO Hui. The Vulnerability of Health Poverty and Its Influencing Factors of the Migrant Workers in Ningxia in the Post-poverty Era [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(07): 929-935. |
| [3] | WANG Youyun, SONG Mingsha, LI Chunsheng, QIAO Hui. The Health Poverty Vulnerability and Its Influencing Factors of Chronic Diseases in Rural Ningxia in the Post-poverty Era [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(07): 922-928. |
| [4] | YOU Shuping, AIFEIRE Abeibao, MENG Na, SONG Xiaowei, WU Pei, LIU Qin, YUAN Yuan. Research on the Health Poverty Vulnerability Evaluation System for Elderly Chronic Disease Patients in Agricultural and Pastoral Areas of Xinjiang [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(04): 518-524. |
| [5] | JIANG Rui, CHANG Guangming, XU Lingling, ZHOU Yuhan, WEI Xinrui, YANG Min, YUE Lu, HUANG Lyuzhuang, WANG Yongchen. Intervention Strategies for Optimizing Chronic Disease Management in Primary Healthcare Services in China: a Perspective Based on Antifragility Development Theory [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(01): 17-23. |
| [6] | LI Chunsheng, WANG Youyun, SONG Mingsha, QIAO Hui. Analysis of the Status Quo and Influencing Factors of Health Service Utilization of Rural Residents in Ningxia from the Perspective of Health Poverty Vulnerability [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(25): 3169-3179. |
| [7] | KONG Yan, ZUO Yanli, LIU Jianghua, WU Huabei, CHEN Enran, WEI Siyu. Performance and Retention Intention Rates of Order-oriented Medical Students in China: a Meta-analysis [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2024, 27(28): 3485-3494. |
| [8] | HUANG Wenjing, QIU Shanjiao, LIANG Yanchang, ZHENG Sihua, ZHAN Licheng, CHEN Miaoyuan, ZENG Yue, LYU Yun, YANG Hui. A Preliminary Study of the Relationship between Personality Traits and Job Stress in Chinese General Practitioners: a Survey Based on the Job Demands and Resources Model [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2024, 27(28): 3500-3509. |
| [9] | ZHANG Yong, WANG Senli, HUANG Ronghua, XU Fengping, LIU Dan. Intervention Effect of Music Therapy on Patients with Alzheimers Disease: a Meta-analysis [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2024, 27(12): 1511-1518. |
| [10] | ZHOU Yujie, LIU Huanting, WAN Chonghua, GAN Qihui, XIAO Junhui, LIU Yuxi. Research on the Relationship between Well-being and Personality Traits in the Elderly Based on Canonical Correlation Analysis [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2024, 27(08): 955-960. |
| [11] | HU Jingyi, HONG Jing, GUO Xiaodong, ZHANG Xiaohong, MO Ning, ZHOU Xiaocui, YU Qin, ZHOU Minhua, SUN Yan, NI Liu, SHI Xiaoli, SU Xiaoqing, LI Yuqian. Efficacy of Community-involved Hospice Care for Patients with Advanced Cancer: a Meta-analysis [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2023, 26(28): 3573-3584. |
| [12] | HE Manlan, YUAN Ping, HE Lei, CHEN Lu. Meta-analysis of Risk Factors for Urinary Tract Infection in Neurogenic Bladder [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2023, 26(21): 2659-2665. |
| [13] | YE Qingfang, WANG Yini, LI Ling, LIU Guojie, LIN Ping, LI Qiujie. Prevalence and Associated Factors of Mild Cognitive Impairment in Young and Middle-aged Hospitalized Patients with Hypertension [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2023, 26(02): 154-159. |
| [14] | WANG Nan, Motuziuk OLEKSANDR, Mishchenko IRYNA, ZHOU Yingting. Levels of Relevant Inflammatory Factors and Oxidative Stress Markers in Alcoholic Myopathy: a Meta-analysis [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2022, 25(33): 4123-4129. |
| [15] | Jingjing LIU, Linan WANG, Xueying ZHOU, Xinran ZHU, Shumei ZHUANG. Factors Associated with Mental Health Status in People Addicted to New Synthetic Drugs: a Path Analysis [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2022, 25(30): 3775-3782. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||