Skip to main content
Download PDF

Effectiveness of psychotherapeutic interventions on psychological distress in women who have experienced perinatal loss: a systematic review protocol

Systematic Reviews volume 9, Article number: 125 (2020) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Perinatal loss is a traumatic and complex experience that contributes to negative maternal psychological states and adverse outcomes impacting fetal development, maternal-fetal/infant bonding, marital/partner relationships, and child cognitive, emotional, and behavioral development. These outcomes present preventable disease burden and financial liability to individuals, families, and the healthcare system. Psychological interventions have the potential to improve outcomes for women and their families after perinatal loss. A few studies have explored the effectiveness of individual psychotherapeutic interventions in reducing maternal psychological distress after perinatal loss; however, a systematic review to compare these interventions has not been conducted. The primary objective of this systematic review is to determine the effectiveness of psychotherapeutic intervention on psychological distress and perception, coping, and adjustment in women who have experienced perinatal loss. The secondary objective of this review is to examine the content and delivery methods of effective psychotherapeutic interventions.

Methods

We endeavor to search electronic databases (PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus, CINAHL, Social Work Abstracts, Family and Society Studies Worldwide, Family Studies Abstracts, Academic Search Premier), gray literature databases (Proquest Dissertation and Theses Global, Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index, OAIster, Open-Grey, Canadian Electronic Library, Canadian Research Index), and relevant organizational websites and conduct forward and backward citation searches of included studies. Inclusion criteria will consider studies that (1) are randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental (e.g., before-after design), and observational (prospective cohort); (2) include women affected by perinatal loss accessing psychotherapeutic intervention or support; and (3) evaluate a mental health or related outcome. Two authors will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data. The study methodological quality (or bias) will be appraised using an appropriate tool. The primary outcome(s) will be measurements on the severity of depressive, anxiety, grief, and post-traumatic stress symptoms. Secondary outcomes will include measurements on difficulties in perception, coping, social, or dyadic adjustment. Conducting a narrative synthesis will identify relationships within study findings, and if appropriate, a random effects meta-analysis will be performed.

Discussion

This systematic review will summarize the effectiveness of psychological interventions, including their content and delivery method, in reducing psychological distress and improving outcomes for women affected by perinatal loss. The evidence generated from this review can inform researchers and policymakers in expanding on related research and developing customized interventions or programs.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42019126456.

Peer Review reports

Background

Perinatal loss (PL) can be experienced as a devastating and psychologically distressing occurrence which studies have shown negatively impacts mental, emotional, and physical health across the lifespan [1,2,3,4,5]. Perinatal loss (PL), which includes prenatal loss (miscarriage or stillbirth) or neonatal death, may occur at any time between the point of conception to 28 days after the date of delivery [6,7,8,9]. Canadian guidelines define miscarriage as the loss of a pregnancy before 20 weeks’ gestation, stillbirth as death after 20 weeks’ gestation with the fetus weighing over 500 g, and neonatal death as loss of an infant within 28 days after birth [6,7,8,9]. Definitions of miscarriage, stillbirth, and neonatal death may vary worldwide because of the lack of standardization.

Across Canada, the USA, and the UK, it is estimated that between 15 and 20% of clinically identified pregnancies result in miscarriage [2, 4, 10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. This estimate is higher for those who have previously lost a pregnancy [25], increasing to 75% for women 45 years of age and over [21]. One study suggested that the actual prevalence of miscarriage, including missed or undocumented miscarriages, represents 30 to 40% of all pregnancies each year [26]. These prevalence rates suggest there are many women who have experienced a unique type of loss that is surrounded by various forms of ambiguity [27,28,29], rendering it particularly traumatizing and difficult to process [28]. Further, perinatal bereavement is considered a complex, emotional and distressed response that has shown to last an indeterminate length of time [30]. Studies have found that perinatal loss (PL) has substantial association with expressions of psychological distress such as depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress (PTS), eating disturbance, preoccupation with the lost fetus/infant, and sleeping disorders [6, 31, 32]. Despite this association, there is insufficient evidence in the literature that describes and compares psychotherapeutic interventions effective in reducing psychological distress in women after perinatal loss (PL) [33]. Limitations such as these may reinforce women’s reticence in seeking resources to care for their mental and emotional health [34, 35] and health care professional’s enduring exclusion of mental and emotional health assessment from standard perinatal care [36]. However, there are some individual studies that have found psychotherapeutic interventions helpful with reducing psychological distress symptoms in women after perinatal loss (PL) [37,38,39]. This is especially true for women who are finding recovery from the PL experience excessively challenging [11, 40,41,42]. It is possible then that some psychotherapeutic interventions are more effective with improving psychological distress in women after PL, than others.

Psychotherapeutic interventions

While little is known about interventions that are effective with improving psychological distress in women affected by perinatal loss (PL) [33], when asked, most women indicated that they would prefer to be under the care of a therapist to help them cope [43]. As such, a specialized program or licensed therapist or registered psychologist knowledgeable in promoting mental health after PL would have the expertise to assist women in discussing their loss, help them to understand, and regulate their emotions while offering non-judgmental support and resources [34, 44].

In the literature, there are a few intervention studies that provide data on the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) [11, 15,16,17, 23, 40, 45, 46], interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) [37, 42, 47], bereavement counseling [38, 48], grief therapy [49], and other psychological and supportive interventions or programs [19, 50, 51]. Despite this, a comprehensive comparison of these intervention studies does not exist. This systematic review will identify the psychotherapeutic intervention(s) with the strongest evidence to suggest superior efficacy in reducing psychological distress in women after PL and examine their content and method of delivery. With the knowledge generated, it is intended that the quality of psychotherapeutic services made available and accessible to women after PL will improve.

Methods

Objectives

The primary objective of this systematic review is to determine the effectiveness of psychotherapeutic intervention on psychological distress (depressive, anxiety, grief, posttraumatic stress symptoms) and perception, coping, and adjustment in women who have experienced perinatal loss (PL). The secondary objective of this review is to examine the content (structure, objectives, goals) and delivery methods (in-person, telephone, online, distance) of effective psychotherapeutic interventions.

Review questions

To address the objectives of this systematic review, the following questions will be answered:

  1. 1.

    What is the effectiveness of psychotherapeutic intervention on psychological distress in women who have experienced PL in comparison with women who do not receive psychotherapeutic intervention?

  2. 2.

    What is the effectiveness of psychotherapeutic intervention on difficulties with perception, coping, and adjustment in women affected by PL in comparison with women who do not receive psychotherapeutic intervention?

  3. 3.

    What is the content and delivery method of the psychotherapeutic intervention that is associated with reducing psychological distress and improving perception, coping, and adjustment in women who have experienced PL?

Protocol and registration

This protocol is being reported in accordance with the reporting guidance provided in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocol (PRISMA-P) statement (Additional file 1) [52]. This review has been registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with registration number CRD42019126456. The proposed systematic review and meta-analysis will be reported in accordance with the reporting guidance provided in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [53].

Eligibility criteria

Criteria identifying studies that are eligible are outlined in PICOSS format (participants, interventions, comparators, outcomes, study designs, and setting) as described below [54].

Participants

Studies will be included if their participants are female, over 18 years of age, and have experienced any type of perinatal loss as a single or recurrent event. Perinatal loss (PL), which includes prenatal loss (miscarriage or stillbirth) or neonatal death, may occur at any time between the point of conception to 28 days after the date of delivery. Miscarriage is defined as the loss of a pregnancy before 20 weeks’ gestation, stillbirth as death after 20 weeks’ gestation with the fetus weighing over 500 g, and neonatal death as loss of an infant within 28 days after birth [6,7,8,9]. A recurrent perinatal loss will be defined as two or more losses occurring consecutively [55]. Studies with participants who are visiting health centers or specialized programs for their perinatal loss or receiving prenatal care for a pregnancy subsequent to a previous perinatal loss will be included. Studies with participants who have experienced an ectopic pregnancy or termination of pregnancy will be excluded.

Measurement

Primary and secondary outcomes may be evaluated using a validated and reliable psychometric measurement tool or a validated questionnaire. However, studies that do not use at least one validated psychometric measurement tool will be excluded.

Intervention

The intervention received may be a psychotherapeutic intervention that was facilitated through a specialized program, or by a registered psychologist, licensed therapist, or other trained and licensed professional credentialed to provide specific counseling. The intervention may include psychological counseling, psychotherapy, psychological support, and psychoeducation in sessions structured to specific objectives or goals (content), conducted individually or in groups, and facilitated in person, on the telephone, online, or via distance delivery (method of delivery).

Comparators

Studies with any type of comparator group will be included. The comparators may represent the group receiving usual care, standard care, routine care, or intervention, another psychological or other non-specific intervention or a group that has been waitlisted.

Outcomes

The primary outcomes of interest include measurements on the severity of depressive, anxiety, grief, and post-traumatic stress symptoms that will have been evaluated using validated psychometric measurement tools according to their own clinical cutoff points. High symptom severity identified on psychometric measurement tools may suggest clinical caseness but does not determine a diagnosis. The secondary outcomes of interest include measurements on difficulties in perception, coping, social, or dyadic adjustment. Difficulties in perception, coping, social, and dyadic adjustment are defined within the parameters of the psychometric measurement tool that is being used to evaluate each dimension.

Study design

Based on a preliminary scoping search, experimental and quasi-experimental studies are primarily expected, findings from which will be incorporated to address the review questions. Research focused on providing data related to the primary and secondary outcomes of this systematic review may include randomized controlled trials (including pilot randomized controlled trials), quasi-experimental studies (e.g., non/equivalent control group design, single group, pre-test/post-test, or before-after design) and observational prospective cohort studies.

Setting

Eligible literature will not be limited by specific setting or geographical location.

Search strategy

A search strategy was developed and revised by a university-based health librarian (KAH) and the primary author (EMC). The search was developed in PsycINFO and piloted to ensure that all seed studies were retrieved. The PsycINFO search was then translated for each identified database, with subject headings responsive to the database vocabulary, and keywords constant. The databases that were searched from their inception onwards within disciplinary databases included PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, Social Work Abstracts, Family and Society Studies Worldwide, and Family Studies Abstracts and within interdisciplinary databases including Scopus and Academic Search Premier (Additional file 2). Database searches will be updated prior to submission of the final publication to ensure all new studies are captured. Gray literature will be searched by the primary author within databases including Proquest Dissertation and Theses Global, Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index, OAIster, Open-Grey, Canadian Electronic Library, and Canadian Research Index. Further, eligible studies will be searched on organizational websites such as International MARCE Society for Perinatal Mental Health, Pregnancy and Infant Loss Network (PAIL), Pregnancy After Loss Support (PALS), WHO Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health, Pregnancy Loss and Infant Death Alliance (PLIDA), International Stillbirth Alliance (ISA), and Canadian Association of Perinatal and Women’s Health Nurses (CAPWHN).

The search strategy will include literature that is not limited by language, publication year, publication status, or methodological quality. Articles retrieved through the search strategy that are not in English will be excluded during the study selection process. Qualitative studies will be excluded, as will other publication types such as books, book chapters, discussion papers, editorials, commentaries, letters, abstracts, posters, reviews, guidelines, and case studies.

From the included full-text articles, backward and forward citation searches will be conducted to create a final list of articles that meet the criteria.

Data collection

Data management

EndNote X8 will be utilized to manage articles by removing duplicates, categorizing studies, and retrieving and storing full-text sources.

Study selection

The Microsoft Excel spreadsheet application will be used to facilitate organization of information throughout the study selection process. There will be three reviewers involved in the process, the author will be the primary reviewer (EMC), a fellow PhD candidate will be the secondary reviewer (KSB), and the supervisor of the first two reviewers will be the third reviewer (DEK). Initially, a training and calibration exercise to pilot the screening tool using the inclusion and exclusion criteria on approximately 30 titles and abstracts will be conducted with revisions made to the tool, as necessary. The titles and abstracts of the list of articles (level 1) will be screened independently by the primary and secondary reviewers with discrepancies resolved by the third reviewer. The articles selected based on their title and/or abstract will be retrieved in full text (level 2) and screened independently by the same two reviewers with discrepancies resolved by the third reviewer. The PRISMA flow diagram will be used to document the study selection process.

Data extraction

Data will be extracted from full-text articles using a data extraction template developed for the randomized controlled trial (RCT) study design and the non-randomized study design using Microsoft Excel. These templates will be customized to capture additional data specific to the intent of the review questions. A calibration exercise will be conducted to pilot the customized templates with five percent of included studies, and revisions will be made as necessary. The process of data extraction will begin with the primary reviewer (EMC) extracting and the secondary reviewer (KSB) verifying the accuracy of the data extracted. Discrepancies will be discussed, and if there is no consensus between the first two reviewers, consultation with the third reviewer (DEK) will provide resolution. To ensure comprehensive data is attained during data extraction, intervention protocols will be accessed. Table 1 outlines the data items that will be extracted from full-text articles.

Table 1 Data items to be extracted from included studies
Full size table

Assessment of methodological quality and risk of bias

Methodological quality and risk of bias will be assessed for each study individually by the primary (EMC) and secondary (KSB) reviewers with discrepancies resolved by the third reviewer (DEK). For the randomized studies included, the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tools for RCTs (RoB2) will be used to assess for bias created from the process of randomization, assignment and adherence to intended interventions, missing outcome data, outcome measurement, and selection of reported results [56]. The RoB2 ratings within each domain will be classified as low risk, high risk, and some concerns [56]. For the non-randomized studies included, the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-1) will be used to assess bias due to confounding, selection of participants, classification of interventions, deviations from intended interventions, missing data, measurement of outcomes, selection of the reported result, and overall bias [57]. The ROBINS-1 ratings within each domain will be classified as low risk, moderate risk, serious risk, critical risk, and no information [57]. Further, an assessment of intervention fidelity will be added to the RoB2 for RCT’s “other” category [56] and to the ROBINS-I’s “deviations from intended interventions” category [57].

Data synthesis and analysis

Synthesis of the extracted data will be conducted in accordance with the York’s Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) guidelines [58]. A narrative synthesis will be used to aggregate studies by the validated measurement tool used and/or intervention type received to compare relationships within the data. The narrative synthesis process is intended to synthesize findings from the included studies, describe patterns within the studies, explore relationships within the results, examine factors impacting intervention effectiveness and effects, and assess robustness and generalizability [59].

Missing data

In the event there is missing data, an attempt to contact authors of the studies will be made. In addition, the attrition rates for each included study will be noted or calculated. If missing data is not obtained or if a study’s attrition rates are high, imputation of missing values will be performed. A sensitivity analysis will then be conducted by removing studies individually to determine the impact that each included study has on the overall intervention effect.

Assessment of heterogeneity

Since clinical and epidemiological heterogeneity is expected a priori, meta-analyses will be conducted using the random effects model where appropriate. The random effects model assumes the treatment effects follow a normal distribution, considering both within-study and between-study variation [60]. Forest plots will be used to visualize pooled estimates and the extent of heterogeneity among studies. We will quantify statistical heterogeneity by estimating the variance between studies using the I2 statistic. The I2 statistic is the proportion of variation in prevalence estimates that is due to genuine variation in prevalence rather than sampling (random) error [60]. The I2 statistic ranges between 0 and 100% (with values of 0–25% and 75–100% taken to indicate low and considerable heterogeneity, respectively) [61]. We will also report Tau2 and Cochran Q test with a P value of < 0.05 considered statistically significant (heterogeneity). Further, if a small number of studies limit the information available to adequately apply the random effects model, a fixed effect model or a Bayesian approach will be appropriate.

Assessment of meta-bias

If there are ten or more appropriate studies in the meta-analysis, meta-bias (reporting or publication) will be assessed by visualizing the funnel plot for each outcome which will be created from each study’s effect estimate and its study size [62]. Conducting Egger’s test of the intercept will quantify the funnel plot’s asymmetry [62].

Analysis of subgroups

With enough information from the included studies, a subgroup analysis will be conducted. The subgroup analysis will consider details related to intervention (type, content, facilitator, delivery method, setting, timing, frequency, length, duration), perinatal loss (type, previous losses), participant (present and past psychiatric condition, pregnancy status), and study design (RCT, quasi-experimental).

Confidence in cumulative evidence

The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach [63], as recommended in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [60], will be used to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome related to psychological distress, perception, coping, and adjustment. The intention in using GRADE is to increase confidence in the review’s cumulative findings which may be used to guide research in the future. The GRADE includes assessments on study design and quality, and consistency and directness and may be rated as high, moderate, low, and very low [63]. The factors that may downgrade the quality of the evidence include study quality limitations, study design, risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness (not generalizable), imprecision (sparse data), and publication bias [63]. The factors assessed that may upgrade the quality of the evidence include large magnitude of effects, dose-response effect, and effect of all plausible factors [63, 64].

Discussion

This protocol outlines the strategy that will be used to complete a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of psychotherapeutic intervention on psychological distress, perception, coping, and adjustment in women who have experienced PL. The content and delivery method associated with effective psychotherapeutic interventions will be identified as well.

While there are a few individual studies that provide data related to the effectiveness of specific psychotherapeutic interventions on women affected by PL [37,38,39], there is no evidence in the literature of a comprehensive comparison of these intervention studies. The knowledge generated from this review will enhance existing evidence and may be used to develop new psychological intervention programs or to refine existing psychotherapy in effort to improve the quality of the services accessible to women after PL. This knowledge is especially important for women residing in medium- and low-resource settings, where access to treatment is likely to be significantly lower than in high-resource settings. With an improvement in relevant services, women will experience improved opportunity to recover after PL, reduced psychological distress, and enhanced resilience. To the best of the author’s knowledge, this will be the first systematic review that overtly and fully intends to generate evidence that can inform researchers and policy makers in expanding on related research and developing tailored interventions or programs that will improve outcomes for women affected by PL and their families.

Availability of data and materials

All results acquired within this review will be available by request through the corresponding author. Results may include database searches, search results, quality appraisal, and data extraction results from included studies.

Abbreviations

CENTRAL:

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials

RCT:

Randomized controlled trial

PROSPERO:

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews

PL:

Perinatal loss

PTS:

Post-traumatic stress

CBT:

Cognitive behavioral therapy

IPT:

Interpersonal psychotherapy

PRISMA-P:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

PICOSS:

Participants, interventions, comparators, outcomes, study designs, setting

PAIL:

Pregnancy and Infant Loss Network

PALS:

Pregnancy After Loss Support

WHO:

World Health Organization

PLIDA:

Pregnancy Loss and Infant Death Alliance

ISA:

International Stillbirth Alliance

CAPWHN:

Canadian Association of Perinatal and Women’s Health Nurses

RoB2:

Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment for RCTs

ROBINS-1:

Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions

CRD:

York’s Centre for Reviews and Dissemination

GRADE:

The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation

References

  1. Beydoun H, Saftlas AF. Physical and mental health outcomes of prenatal maternal stress in human and animal studies: a review of recent evidence. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2008;22:438–66..

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Campillo I, Meaney S, McNamara K, O’Donoghue K. Psychological and support interventions to reduce levels of stress, anxiety or depression on women’s subsequent pregnancy with a history of miscarriage: an empty systematic review. BMJ Open. 2017;7(9):1–8.

  3. Côté-Arsenault D, Mahlangu N. Impact of perinatal loss on the subsequent pregnancy and self: women’s experiences. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 1999;28:275–82.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kingston D, Heaman M, Fell D, Dzakpasu S, Chalmers B. Factors associated with perceived stress and stressful life events in pregnant women: findings from the Canadian Maternity Experiences Survey. Matern Child Health J. 2012;16:158–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Toffol E, Koponen P, Partonen T. Miscarriage and mental health: results of two population-based studies. Psychiatry Res. 2013;205(1-2):151–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kersting A, Wagner B. Complicated grief after perinatal loss. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2012;14(2):187–94.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Barfield WD. Standard terminology for fetal, infant, and perinatal deaths. Pediatrics. 2011;128(1):177–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Meredith P, Wilson T, Branjerdporn G, Strong J, Desha L. “Not just a normal mom”: a qualitative investigation of a support services for women who are pregnant subsequent to perinatal loss. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(6):1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Wang H, Liddel CA, Coates MM, Mooney MD, Levitz CE, Schumacher AE, et al. Global, regional, and national levels of neonatal, infant, and under-5 mortality during 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study. Lancet. 2013;384(9947):957–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Everett C. Incidence and outcome of bleeding before the 20th week of pregnancy: prospective study from general practice. BMJ. 1997;315:32–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Bennett SM, Ehrenreich-May J, Litz BT, Boisseau CL, Barlow DH. Development and preliminary evaluation of a cognitive-behavioral intervention for perinatal grief. Cogn Behav Pract. 2012;19:161–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Carter D, Misri S, Tomfohr L. Psychologic aspects of early pregnancy loss. Clin Obs Gyn. 2007;50(1):154–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Geller PA, Psaros C, Kornfield SL. Satisfaction with pregnancy loss aftercare: are women getting what they want? Arch Womens Ment Health. 2010;13(2):111–24.

  14. Gold KJ, Dalton VK, Schwenk TL. Hospital care for parents after perinatal death. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2007;109(5):1156–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kersting A, Kroker K, Schlicht S, Baust K, Wagner B. Efficacy of cognitive behavioral internet-based therapy in parents after the loss of a child during pregnancy: pilot data from a randomized controlled trial. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2011;14:465–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kersting, et al. Brief internet-based intervention reduces posttraumatic stress and prolonged grief in parents after the loss of a child during pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. Psychother Psyhosom. 2013;2:372–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Khodakarami B, Mafakheri B, Shobeiri F, Soltanian A, Mohagheghi H. The effect of Fordyce Happiness cognitive behavioral counseling on the anxiety and depression of women with spontaneous abortion. JPSR. 2017;9(12):2335–41.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Klein S, Cumming GP, Lee AJ, Alexander DA, Bolsover D. Evaluating the effectiveness of a web-based intervention to promote mental wellbeing n women and partners following miscarriage, using a modified patient preference trial design: an external pilot. BJOG. 2012;119:762–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lee C, Slade P, Lygo V. The influence of psychological debriefing on emotional adaptation in women following early miscarriage: a preliminary study. Br J Med Psychol. 1996;69(1):47–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. National Library of Medicine. Miscarriage. 2018. https://medlineplus.gov/miscarriage.html. Accessed 15 Oct 2019.

  21. Robinson GE. Dilemmas related to pregnancy loss. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2011;199:571–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Savitz DA, Hertz-Picciotto I, Poole C, Olshan AF. Epidemiologic measures of the course and outcome of pregnancy. Epidemiol Rev. 2002;24:91–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sejourne N, Callahan S, Chabrol H. The utility of a psychological intervention for coping with spontaneous abortion. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2010;28(3):287–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Smith NC. Epidemiology of spontaneous abortion. Cont Rev Obs Gyn. 1988;1:43–8.

    Google Scholar 

  25. August E, Salihu H, Weldeselasse H, Biroscak B, Mbah A, Alio A. Infant mortality and subsequent risk of still birth: a retrospective cohort study. Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;118:1636–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Michels TC, Tiu AY. Second trimester pregnancy loss. Am Fam Physician. 2007;76(9):1341–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Boss P. Ambiguous loss: learning to live with unresolved grief. CambridgeA: Harvard University Press; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Frost J, Bradley H, Levitas R, Smith L, Garcia J. The loss of possibility: scientisation of death and the special case of early miscarriage. Sociol Health Illn. 2007;29(7):1003–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lang A, Fleiszer A, Duhamel F, Sword W, Gilbert K, Corsini-Munt S. Perinatal loss and parental grief: the challenge of ambiguity and disenfranchised grief. OMEGA. 2011;63(2):183–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mills TA, Ricklesford C, Cooke A, Heazell AEP, Whitworth M, Lavender T. Parent’s experiences and expectations of care in pregnancy after stillbirth or neonatal death: a meta-synthesis. BJOG. 2014;121:943–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hughes P, Riches S. Psychological aspects of perinatal loss. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2003;15(2):107–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hunter A, Tussis L, MacBeth A. The presence of anxiety, depression and stress in women and their partners during pregnancies following perinatal loss: a meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. 2017;223:153–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Murphy FA, Lipp A, Powles DL. Follow-up for improving psychological well being for women after a miscarriage (review). Cochrane Collaboration Cochrane Library. 2012;3:1–39.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Brier N. Grief following miscarriage: a comprehensive review of the literature. J Womens Studies. 2008;3:451–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Nikcevic AV, Kuczmierczyk AR, Nicolaides KH. The influence of medical and psychological interventions on women’s distress after miscarriage. J Psychosom Res. 2007;63(3):283–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Chew-Graham C, Chamberlain E, Turner K, Folkes L, Caulfield L, Sharp D. GP’s and health visitors’ views on the diagnosis and management postnatal depression: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract. 2008;58:169–76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Johnson, et al. Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) for major depression following perinatal loss: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Arch Wom Ment Health. 2016;19:845–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Simpson C, Lee P, Lionel J. The effect of bereavement counseling on women with psychological problems associated with late pregnancy loss. JAM. 2015;2(2):5–20.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Navidian A, Saravani Z, Shakiba M. Impact of psychological grief counseling on the severity of post-traumatic stress symptoms in mothers after stillbirths. Iss Ment Health Nurs. 2017;38(8):650–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Nakano Y, Akechi T, Furukawa TA, Sugiura-Ogasawara M. Cognitive behavior therapy for psychological distress in patients with recurrent miscarriage. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2013;6:37–43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Neugebauer R, Kline J, Markowitz JC, Bleiberg KL, Baxi L, Rosing MA, Levin B, Keith J. Pilot randomized trial of interpersonal counselling for subsyndromal depression following miscarriage. J Clin Psychiatry. 2006;67:1299–304.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Neugebauer, et al. Preliminary open trial of interpersonal counseling for subsyndromal depression following miscarriage. Depression & Anxiety. 2007;24(3):219–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Kong GW, Lok IH, Lam PM, Yip AS, Chung TK. Conflicting perceptions between health care professionals and patients on the psychological morbidity following miscarriage. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;50:562–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Trepal HC, Semivan SG, Caley-Bruce M. Miscarriage: a dream interrupted. J Creativ Ment Health. 2005;1(3-4):155–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Cardoso A, Nardi AE. Cognitive-behavioral therapy to miscarriage: results from the use of a grief therapy protocol. Revista de Psiquiatria Clinica. 2011;38(3):122–4.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Navidian A, Saravani Z. Impact of cognitive behavioral-based counseling on grief symptoms severity in mothers after stillbirth. Iran J Psychiatry Behav Sci. 2018;12(1):1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Ozer U, Yuksel G. Interpersonal psychotherapy in the treatment of perinatal complicated grief: a case who experienced intrauterine loss of twins. J Mood Disord. 2016;6(1):20–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Forrest GC, Standish E, Baum JD. Support after perinatal death: a study of support and counselling after perinatal bereavement. BMJ. 1982;285:1475–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Alves D, Mendes I, Goncalves MM, Neimeyer RA. Innovative moments in grief therapy: reconstructing meaning following perinatal death. Death Stud. 2012;36:795–818.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Cohen K, Leibovich L, Markin R, Zilcha-Mano S. The process of change in psychotherapy with a pregnant patient following perinatal losses: an analysis of a case study. J Clin Psychol. 2019;75(5):874–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Kong GWS, Chung TKH, Lok IH. The impact of supportive counselling on women’s psychological wellbeing after miscarriage: a randomized controlled trial. BJOG. 2014;121:1253–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1.

  53. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The Prisma Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing research: generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. 10th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Hogge WA, Byrnes AL, Lanasa MC, Surti U. The clinical use of karyotyping spontaneous abortions. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:397–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:i4898.

  57. Sterne JAC, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. Layerthorpe: CRD University of York; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden AJ, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. A product from the ESRC methods programme. London: Institute for Health Research; 2006.

  60. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2019.

  61. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7454):1490.

  62. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Br J Medicine. 1997;315(7109):629–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A, editors. GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. In: The Cochrane Collection. 2013. gdt.guidelinedevelopment.org/app/handbook/handbook.html. Accessed 18 May 2020.  .

  64. Ryan R, Hill S. How to GRADE the quality of the evidence. Version 3.0. In: Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group. 2016.http://cccrg.cochrane.org/author-resources. Accessed 10 May 2020.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Moving forward, EMC, KSB, and DEK will be involved in screening and data extraction.

Amendments

Should amendments between the protocol and the systematic review be required, a concise explanation in the methods sections of the final review will be provided and a revision in PROSPERO will be completed.

Funding

This systematic review has been designed as the second phase of a three-phase doctoral study at the University of Calgary. The corresponding author is the recipient of the Eyes High Doctoral Recruitment Scholarship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive, N.W., Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1 N4, Canada

    Elyse M. Charrois, Katherine S. Bright, Abdul Wajid, Muhammad Kashif Mughal & Dawn Kingston

  2. Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute (ACHRI), Calgary, Alberta, Canada

    Katherine S. Bright & Dawn Kingston

  3. Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, T2S 3C3, Canada

    Muhammad Kashif Mughal

  4. Libraries and Cultural Resources, University of Calgary, T2N 1 N4, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

    K. Alix Hayden

Authors
  1. Elyse M. Charrois
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katherine S. Bright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Abdul Wajid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Muhammad Kashif Mughal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. K. Alix Hayden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Dawn Kingston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

EMC and DEK conceived and designed the study. EMC, DEK, and KAH developed the study methods and identified the inclusion/exclusion criteria. EMC and KAH created and finalized the search terms. KAH completed the searches in all databases, combined the results, removed the duplicates, exported the results to EndNote X8, and inserted preliminary data in the PRISMA flow diagram. EMC and KSB will pilot all forms; review all titles, abstracts, and full-text articles; select studies to include; and evaluate their methodological quality. EMC will extract data with a review for accuracy conducted by KSB. EMC drafted this protocol manuscript. All authors reviewed, provided recommendations, and approved the final protocol manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elyse M. Charrois.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study will be established on data from published studies which declares no requirement for ethics approval.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) Checklist: Completed PRISMA-P checklist specific to this protocol.

Additional file 2.

Search Strategy. Completed search strategy corresponding with this protocol.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Charrois, E.M., Bright, K.S., Wajid, A. et al. Effectiveness of psychotherapeutic interventions on psychological distress in women who have experienced perinatal loss: a systematic review protocol. Syst Rev 9, 125 (2020). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s13643-020-01387-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s13643-020-01387-6

Keywords

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053