OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-8, and the PHQ-2, a two-item version of the PHQ, respectively, in pregnancy. These screeners were compared to a structured diagnostic interview in a cohort of pregnant women attending prenatal care. Based upon studies documenting high sensitivity and specificity on the PHQ-8 and PHQ-2 in the general adult population, we hypothesized that both instruments would be effective in this population. METHODS: Two hundred eighteen women, 13 of them depressed, were given the Composite International Diagnostic Interview and the PHQ-8 before 17 weeks of pregnancy. Receiver Operating Characteristic curves determined optimal thresholds and sensitivity and specificity were calculated using both dimensional and categorical approaches. Agreement between the PHQ-2 and PHQ-8 was measured using Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: Optimal cutoffs for the PHQ-8 and PHQ-2 were 11 and 4, respectively. Using these cutoffs, the PHQ-8 had a sensitivity of 77% and a specificity of 62% while the PHQ-2 had a sensitivity of 62% and a specificity of 79%. The categorical method of scoring the PHQ-8 yielded a sensitivity of 54% and a specificity of 84%. CONCLUSIONS: In our sample, the PHQ-8 and PHQ-2 performed almost equally in detecting probable major depressive disorder in a sample of pregnant women. The categorical scoring method for the PHQ-8 had lower sensitivity but slightly higher specificity than the dimensional version. We found the PHQ-8 and PHQ-2 to have lower sensitivity and specificity in our pregnant population as compared to findings in nonpregnant populations; however, characteristics of our sample and choice of diagnostics instrument could explain these discrepant findings.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-8, and the PHQ-2, a two-item version of the PHQ, respectively, in pregnancy. These screeners were compared to a structured diagnostic interview in a cohort of pregnant women attending prenatal care. Based upon studies documenting high sensitivity and specificity on the PHQ-8 and PHQ-2 in the general adult population, we hypothesized that both instruments would be effective in this population. METHODS: Two hundred eighteen women, 13 of them depressed, were given the Composite International Diagnostic Interview and the PHQ-8 before 17 weeks of pregnancy. Receiver Operating Characteristic curves determined optimal thresholds and sensitivity and specificity were calculated using both dimensional and categorical approaches. Agreement between the PHQ-2 and PHQ-8 was measured using Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: Optimal cutoffs for the PHQ-8 and PHQ-2 were 11 and 4, respectively. Using these cutoffs, the PHQ-8 had a sensitivity of 77% and a specificity of 62% while the PHQ-2 had a sensitivity of 62% and a specificity of 79%. The categorical method of scoring the PHQ-8 yielded a sensitivity of 54% and a specificity of 84%. CONCLUSIONS: In our sample, the PHQ-8 and PHQ-2 performed almost equally in detecting probable major depressive disorder in a sample of pregnant women. The categorical scoring method for the PHQ-8 had lower sensitivity but slightly higher specificity than the dimensional version. We found the PHQ-8 and PHQ-2 to have lower sensitivity and specificity in our pregnant population as compared to findings in nonpregnant populations; however, characteristics of our sample and choice of diagnostics instrument could explain these discrepant findings.
Authors: B N Gaynes; N Gavin; S Meltzer-Brody; K N Lohr; T Swinson; G Gartlehner; S Brody; W C Miller Journal: Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ) Date: 2005-02
Authors: Barbara P Yawn; Wilson Pace; Peter C Wollan; Susan Bertram; Margary Kurland; Deborah Graham; Allen Dietrich Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2009 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Megan V Smith; Robert A Rosenheck; Mary A Cavaleri; Heather B Howell; Karalee Poschman; Kimberly A Yonkers Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Rosemary H Kelly; Joan Russo; Victoria L Holt; Beate H Danielsen; Douglas F Zatzick; Edward Walker; Wayne Katon Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Marushka L Silveira; Brian W Whitcomb; Penelope Pekow; Elena T Carbone; Lisa Chasan-Taber Journal: J Public Health Dent Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 1.821
Authors: Carolyn M Audet; Milton L Wainberg; Maria A Oquendo; Qiongru Yu; Meridith Blevins Peratikos; Cristiane S Duarte; Samuel Martinho; Ann F Green; Lazaro González-Calvo; Troy D Moon Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2017-10-12 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Jordan P Davis; Joan S Tucker; Michael S Dunbar; Eric R Pedersen; Elizabeth J D'Amico Journal: Aggress Behav Date: 2020-08-20 Impact factor: 2.917
Authors: Milton Wainberg; Maria A Oquendo; Meridith Blevins Peratikos; Lazaro Gonzalez-Calvo; Ilana Pinsky; Cristiane S Duarte; Qiongru Yu; Ann F Green; Samuel Martinho; Troy D Moon; Carolyn M Audet Journal: Alcohol Date: 2018-04-05 Impact factor: 2.405