Editing Postpartum depression (section)

=== Issues in reporting prevalence ===

Most studies regarding PPD are done using self-report screenings which are less reliable than clinical interviews. This use of self-reporting may have results that underreport symptoms and thus postpartum depression rates.<ref name="Hahn-Holbrook_2018">{{cite journal | vauthors = Hahn-Holbrook J, Cornwell-Hinrichs T, Anaya I | title = Economic and Health Predictors of National Postpartum Depression Prevalence: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Meta-Regression of 291 Studies from 56 Countries | journal = Frontiers in Psychiatry | volume = 8 | page = 248 | date = 2018 | pmid = 29449816 | pmc = 5799244 | doi = 10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00248 | doi-access = free }}</ref><ref name="Ko_2017" />

Furthermore, the prevalence of postpartum depression in Arab countries exhibits significant variability, often due to diverse assessment methodologies.<ref name="Ayoub_2020" /> In a review of twenty-five studies examining PPD, differences in assessment methods, recruitment locations, and timing of evaluations complicate prevalence measurement.<ref name="Ayoub_2020" /> For instance, the studies varied in their approach, with some using a longitudinal panel method tracking PPD at multiple points during pregnancy and postpartum periods, while others employed cross-sectional approaches to estimate point or period prevalences. The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) was commonly used across these studies, yet variations in cutoff scores further determined the results of prevalence.<ref name="Ayoub_2020" />

For example, a study in Kom Ombo, Egypt, reported a rate of 73.7% for PPD, but the small sample size of 57 mothers and the broad measurement timeframe spanning from two weeks to one year postpartum contributes to the challenge of making definitive prevalence conclusions (2). This wide array of assessment methods and timing significantly impacts the reported rates of postpartum depression.<ref name="Ayoub_2020" />