
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] | 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. |
| [2] | 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. |
| [3] | 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. |
| [4] | 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. |
| [5] | 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. |
| [6] | 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. |
| [7] | 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. |
| [8] | 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. |
| [9] | 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. |
| [10] | 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. |
| [11] | Ke LI, Zheng LI, Hui GENG, Jie MA. Efficacy and Safety of CD38 Monoclonal Antibodies in Multiple Myeloma: a Meta-analysis [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2022, 25(21): 2661-2669. |
| [12] | Lida YIN, Jiasen WANG, Yongchao HE, Aiqun LI. A Meta-analysis of the Effect of Unprofessional Early Defibrillation on the Survival Rate of Patients with Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2022, 25(14): 1757-1764. |
| [13] | Qian ZOU, Miaomiao GENG, Yanhong ZHU. Development and External Validation of an Evidence-based Risk Prediction Model for Multidrug-resistant Bacterial Infections in ICU Patients [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2022, 25(12): 1441-1448. |
| [14] |
TENG Wenzhe, CHEN Hu, SHI Siyao, CHENG Kangyao, WANG Yin.
Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of the Effects of Bilevel Positive Pressure Ventilation in the Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Complicated with TypeⅡ Respiratory Failure [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2022, 25(02): 227-235. |
| [15] | ZHOU Jinchi, DOU Weijia, WEI Yan, ZHAO Shuguang, HAN Wei, CHENG Hao, LIU Zhenxiong. Anxiety and Depression Prevalence in Chinese Patients with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease:a Meta-analysis [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2021, 24(5): 608-613. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||