Effect of peer support on prevention of postnatal depression among high risk women: multisite randomised controlled…
A trained peer volunteer phoning weekly cut the rate of postnatal depression from 25% to 14% in a randomised trial — is there a peer-support programme in this area you can refer me to?
Top of the evidence hierarchy, independently funded. how we score evidence
Caveat on this rating: The between-group difference disappeared by 24 weeks, but that is because women found to be depressed at 12 weeks were referred for treatment for ethical reasons, which contaminates the later comparison rather than showing the effect wore off. The trial also found no benefit for loneliness or health-service use.
701 Ontario mothers screened as high-risk for postnatal depression were randomised to proactive telephone support from a trained volunteer who had herself recovered from postnatal depression, or to usual care. At 12 weeks, 14% of the peer-support group scored above the depression threshold versus 25% of controls (number needed to treat 8.8, 95% CI 5.9 to 19.6). Over 80% of the women who received peer support were satisfied and would recommend it.
Worth asking
A trained peer volunteer phoning weekly cut the rate of postnatal depression from 25% to 14% in a randomised trial — is there a peer-support programme in this area you can refer me to?
Source
Effect of peer support on prevention of postnatal depression among high risk women: multisite randomised controlled trial. — Dennis CL, Hodnett E, Kenton L, et al. (2009)
Top-tier peer-reviewed journal
Read the source: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a3064
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.a3064
How this was scored
- Study design
- Randomised controlled trial
- Funding
- Independently funded
- Published in
- Top-tier peer-reviewed journal
- Sample size
- 701
- Preregistered
- Yes
- Conflicts disclosed
- Yes
- Independent of proponent
- Yes
- Retracted
- No
Read the full scoring rubric, including what it can't tell you.
Published August 19, 2026.
Where we put this study in context
Questions
How strong is the evidence behind this?
Resolv rates this source "gold standard". Top of the evidence hierarchy, independently funded. It scores 91 out of 100 on our published rubric. One caveat travels with that badge: The between-group difference disappeared by 24 weeks, but that is because women found to be depressed at 12 weeks were referred for treatment for ethical reasons, which contaminates the later comparison rather than showing the effect wore off. The trial also found no benefit for loneliness or health-service use. The score is calculated from recorded facts about the source — study design, funding, publication venue, sample size, preregistration — not typed in by an editor.
What is the source for this?
Effect of peer support on prevention of postnatal depression among high risk women: multisite randomised controlled trial. — Dennis CL, Hodnett E, Kenton L, et al. (2009). Published in: Top-tier peer-reviewed journal. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.a3064. The full source is linked on this page so you can read it yourself.
Who paid for this research, and does that matter?
Study design: Randomised controlled trial. Funding: Independently funded. The researchers were independent of whoever benefits from the result. Industry sponsorship is one of the most reliably measured biases in medicine, which is why funding carries real weight in the score rather than sitting in a footnote.
Is this medical advice?
This is information to bring to your prescriber, not medical advice and not a reason to change anything on your own. Nothing here is an instruction to stop or reduce a medication. If you are in crisis, call or text 988.
This is information to bring to your prescriber, not medical advice and not a reason to change anything on your own. Nothing here is an instruction to stop or reduce a medication. If you are in crisis, call or text 988.