Qiuyue Zhong1, Bizu Gelaye2, Marta Rondon3, Sixto E Sánchez4, Pedro J García4, Elena Sánchez5, Yasmin V Barrios1, Gregory E Simon6, David C Henderson7, Swee May Cripe8, Michelle A Williams1. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, K505F, Boston, MA 02115, United States. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, K505F, Boston, MA 02115, United States. Electronic address: bgelaye@hsph.harvard.edu. 3. Department of Medicine, Cayetano Heredia Peruvian University, Lima, Peru. 4. Universidad San Martin de Porres, Lima, Peru. 5. Asociación Civil PROESA, Lima, Peru. 6. Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States. 7. Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States. 8. School of Medicine, Perdana University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the psychometric properties of two widely used screening scales: the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) among pregnant Peruvian women. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 1517 women receiving prenatal care from February 2012 to March 2013. A structured interview was used to collect data using PHQ-9 and EPDS. We examined reliability, construct and concurrent validity between two scales using internal consistency indices, factor structures, correlations, and Cohen׳s kappa. RESULTS: Both scales had good internal consistency (Cronbach׳s alpha>0.8). Correlation between PHQ-9 and EPDS scores was fair (rho=0.52). Based on exploratory factor analysis (EFA), both scales yielded a two-factor structure. EFA including all items from PHQ-9 and EPDS yielded four factors, namely, "somatization", "depression and suicidal ideation", "anxiety and depression", and "anhedonia". The agreement between the two scales was generally fair at different cutoff scores with the highest Cohen׳s kappa being 0.46. CONCLUSIONS: Both the PHQ-9 and EPDS are reliable and valid scales for antepartum depression assessment. The PHQ-9 captures somatic symptoms, while EPDS detects depressive symptoms comorbid with anxiety during early pregnancy. Our findings suggest simultaneous administration of both scales may improve identification of antepartum depressive disorders in clinical settings.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the psychometric properties of two widely used screening scales: the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) among pregnant Peruvian women. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 1517 women receiving prenatal care from February 2012 to March 2013. A structured interview was used to collect data using PHQ-9 and EPDS. We examined reliability, construct and concurrent validity between two scales using internal consistency indices, factor structures, correlations, and Cohen׳s kappa. RESULTS: Both scales had good internal consistency (Cronbach׳s alpha>0.8). Correlation between PHQ-9 and EPDS scores was fair (rho=0.52). Based on exploratory factor analysis (EFA), both scales yielded a two-factor structure. EFA including all items from PHQ-9 and EPDS yielded four factors, namely, "somatization", "depression and suicidal ideation", "anxiety and depression", and "anhedonia". The agreement between the two scales was generally fair at different cutoff scores with the highest Cohen׳s kappa being 0.46. CONCLUSIONS: Both the PHQ-9 and EPDS are reliable and valid scales for antepartum depression assessment. The PHQ-9 captures somatic symptoms, while EPDS detects depressive symptoms comorbid with anxiety during early pregnancy. Our findings suggest simultaneous administration of both scales may improve identification of antepartum depressive disorders in clinical settings.
Authors: Josep Maria Haro; Saena Arbabzadeh-Bouchez; Traolach S Brugha; Giovanni de Girolamo; Margaret E Guyer; Robert Jin; Jean Pierre Lepine; Fausto Mazzi; Blanca Reneses; Gemma Vilagut; Nancy A Sampson; Ronald C Kessler Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2006 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Barbara H Hanusa; Sarah Hudson Scholle; Roger F Haskett; Kathleen Spadaro; Katherine L Wisner Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Yueh-Hsiu Mathilda Chiu; Perry E Sheffield; Hsiao-Hsien Leon Hsu; Jonathan Goldstein; Paul C Curtin; Rosalind J Wright Journal: Arch Womens Ment Health Date: 2017-08-02 Impact factor: 3.633
Authors: Olivia R Orta; Shelley S Tworoger; Kathryn L Terry; Brent A Coull; Bizu Gelaye; Clemens Kirschbaum; Sixto E Sanchez; Michelle A Williams Journal: Stress Date: 2018-12-26 Impact factor: 3.493
Authors: Bizu Gelaye; Qiu-Yue Zhong; Yasmin V Barrios; Susan Redline; Christopher L Drake; Michelle A Williams Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2016-04-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Elizabeth J Levey; Marta B Rondon; Sixto Sanchez; Qiu-Yue Zhong; Michelle A Williams; Bizu Gelaye Journal: Arch Womens Ment Health Date: 2018-07-03 Impact factor: 3.633
Authors: Bizu Gelaye; Sixto E Sanchez; Ana Andrade; Oswaldo Gómez; Ann L Coker; Nancy Dole; Marta B Rondon; Michelle A Williams Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2019-11-04 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Olivia R Orta; Shelley S Tworoger; Kathryn L Terry; Brent A Coull; Bizu Gelaye; Clemens Kirschbaum; Sixto E Sanchez; Michelle A Williams Journal: Stress Date: 2018-04-04 Impact factor: 3.493