OBJECTIVES: First, to explore the utility of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) in routine primary care through a large community screening program. Next, to compare administration of a second EPDS versus the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) in identifying postnatal depression in the prescreened population. METHOD: Screening with the EPDS through Maternal and Child Health Centres at 4 months post-partum. Women scoring > or = 12 were assessed against DSM-IV criteria and completed a BDI and a second EPDS. These data were subjected to receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. RESULTS: Of 4148 screened, 533 (12.8%) scored > or = 12. Of these, 344 were assessed against DSM-IV criteria: 193 (56%) - major depressive disorder; 67 (20%) - other diagnoses that incorporated depression. Positive predictive value at screening was therefore 76%. Another 45 (13%) had non-depressive disorders and 39 (11%) were psychiatric non-cases. The BDI was the better diagnostic instrument in the prescreened population, having a significantly higher efficiency as quantified by ROC curve analysis, though the absolute difference in efficiency was small (approximately 6%). CONCLUSIONS: Screening with the EPDS integrated well into routine primary care. Two-step screening offers one way of achieving acceptable balances of operational simplicity and diagnostic accuracy.
OBJECTIVES: First, to explore the utility of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) in routine primary care through a large community screening program. Next, to compare administration of a second EPDS versus the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) in identifying postnatal depression in the prescreened population. METHOD: Screening with the EPDS through Maternal and Child Health Centres at 4 months post-partum. Women scoring > or = 12 were assessed against DSM-IV criteria and completed a BDI and a second EPDS. These data were subjected to receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. RESULTS: Of 4148 screened, 533 (12.8%) scored > or = 12. Of these, 344 were assessed against DSM-IV criteria: 193 (56%) - major depressive disorder; 67 (20%) - other diagnoses that incorporated depression. Positive predictive value at screening was therefore 76%. Another 45 (13%) had non-depressive disorders and 39 (11%) were psychiatric non-cases. The BDI was the better diagnostic instrument in the prescreened population, having a significantly higher efficiency as quantified by ROC curve analysis, though the absolute difference in efficiency was small (approximately 6%). CONCLUSIONS: Screening with the EPDS integrated well into routine primary care. Two-step screening offers one way of achieving acceptable balances of operational simplicity and diagnostic accuracy.
Authors: Lianne M Tomfohr; Elena Buliga; Nicole L Letourneau; Tavis S Campbell; Gerald F Giesbrecht Journal: Sleep Date: 2015-08-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Julie D Flom; Yueh-Hsiu Mathilda Chiu; Marcela Tamayo-Ortiz; Lourdes Schnaas; Paul C Curtin; Rosalind J Wright; Robert O Wright; Martha M Téllez-Rojo; Maria José Rosa Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2018-05-29 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Roy Wade; Brandon D Becker; Katherine B Bevans; Derek C Ford; Christopher B Forrest Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-11-16 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Sarah R Brand; Patricia A Brennan; D Jeffrey Newport; Alicia K Smith; Tamara Weiss; Zachary N Stowe Journal: Psychoneuroendocrinology Date: 2009-11-20 Impact factor: 4.905
Authors: Ian M Bennett; Andrew Coco; James C Coyne; Alex J Mitchell; James Nicholson; Ellen Johnson; Michael Horst; Stephen Ratcliffe Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2008 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.657