BACKGROUND: Perinatal anxiety symptoms and disorders are prevalent and disabling but have not to date been a focus for specific clinical and public health attention. The EPDS is widely used to detect probable depression, and many studies have also found that three items from this scale load on an anxiety factor, in both the antenatal and postnatal periods. In addition, studies have found clinically significant correlations between the EPDS and various anxiety-specific measures in the perinatal period. The aim of this paper is to examine studies which address the capacity of the EPDS to detect anxiety disorders, to assess whether the EPDS performs differently in women with depressive or anxiety disorders and to consider the implications for future research and clinical practice. METHODS: The English-language perinatal mental health literature was searched. Six studies with data pertaining to the capacity of the EPDS to detect perinatal anxiety disorders in women were identified. These studies provide information on i) comparison of total EPDS score by diagnoses of anxiety and depression and ii) comparison of the anxiety subscale score (EPDS-3A) by diagnoses of anxiety and depression. RESULTS: There is evidence from both sets of information that the EPDS is useful for screening for anxiety in women and emerging evidence that Total EPDS and EPDS-3A can distinguish depression from anxiety reliably. LIMITATIONS: The findings are based on a small number of studies, conducted in a variety of clinical and community settings in different languages and countries, and with variable sample sizes, some of which lack power to ensure reliable conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: The EPDS appears to detect perinatal anxiety disorders, but further research is required to establish the clinical and public health value of the EPDS for this purpose, and whether it has more robust psychometric properties or is more feasible and acceptable than existing anxiety-specific measures. Crown
BACKGROUND: Perinatal anxiety symptoms and disorders are prevalent and disabling but have not to date been a focus for specific clinical and public health attention. The EPDS is widely used to detect probable depression, and many studies have also found that three items from this scale load on an anxiety factor, in both the antenatal and postnatal periods. In addition, studies have found clinically significant correlations between the EPDS and various anxiety-specific measures in the perinatal period. The aim of this paper is to examine studies which address the capacity of the EPDS to detect anxiety disorders, to assess whether the EPDS performs differently in women with depressive or anxiety disorders and to consider the implications for future research and clinical practice. METHODS: The English-language perinatal mental health literature was searched. Six studies with data pertaining to the capacity of the EPDS to detect perinatal anxiety disorders in women were identified. These studies provide information on i) comparison of total EPDS score by diagnoses of anxiety and depression and ii) comparison of the anxiety subscale score (EPDS-3A) by diagnoses of anxiety and depression. RESULTS: There is evidence from both sets of information that the EPDS is useful for screening for anxiety in women and emerging evidence that Total EPDS and EPDS-3A can distinguish depression from anxiety reliably. LIMITATIONS: The findings are based on a small number of studies, conducted in a variety of clinical and community settings in different languages and countries, and with variable sample sizes, some of which lack power to ensure reliable conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: The EPDS appears to detect perinatal anxiety disorders, but further research is required to establish the clinical and public health value of the EPDS for this purpose, and whether it has more robust psychometric properties or is more feasible and acceptable than existing anxiety-specific measures. Crown
Authors: Karen T Putnam; Marsha Wilcox; Emma Robertson-Blackmore; Katherine Sharkey; Veerle Bergink; Trine Munk-Olsen; Kristina M Deligiannidis; Jennifer Payne; Margaret Altemus; Jeffrey Newport; Gisele Apter; Emmanuel Devouche; Alexander Viktorin; Patrik Magnusson; Brenda Penninx; Anne Buist; Justin Bilszta; Michael O'Hara; Scott Stuart; Rebecca Brock; Sabine Roza; Henning Tiemeier; Constance Guille; C Neill Epperson; Deborah Kim; Peter Schmidt; Pedro Martinez; Arianna Di Florio; Katherine L Wisner; Zachary Stowe; Ian Jones; Patrick F Sullivan; David Rubinow; Kevin Wildenhaus; Samantha Meltzer-Brody Journal: Lancet Psychiatry Date: 2017-05-03 Impact factor: 27.083
Authors: Emily J Fawcett; Nichole Fairbrother; Megan L Cox; Ian R White; Jonathan M Fawcett Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2019-07-23 Impact factor: 4.384
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