This summer, I worked as a research assistant for Penn’s School of Social Policy and Practice. I worked under Dr. Corcoran on a meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy of treatment methods for low-income women with depression. During this research experience, I did both qualitative and quantitative reviews of research conducted on women who were clinically diagnosed with depression. My first responsibility was reviewing the quantitative data and reviewing over one thousand articles from various data bases to determine which published arties met criteria. There criteria included: low socioeconomic status, identified as a woman, over the age of 18, and depressed. Depression was determined by the use of a diagnostic tool and/or clinical diagnosis. Once filtered, articles that met criteria were then coded in depth so that information could be extracted about the research methods and findings. A similar process was followed for the qualitative data, however, this information was more subject and based upon personal anecdotes and information. This included an individual’s account and expression of depression. The information was then divided based upon experience with depression, coping strategies, social support and stigma, and barriers to treatment. This research is important for giving a macro review of the field of intervention and treatment methods of depression so that moving forward more applicable and efficient intervention strategies can be further applied.