Marina Odalovic1, Ivana Tadic2, Dragana Lakic2, Hedvig Nordeng3, Angela Lupattelli4, Ljiljana Tasic2. 1. Department of Social Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Legislation, University of Belgrade - Faculty of Pharmacy, Vojvode Stepe 450, 11221 Belgrade, Serbia. Electronic address: mpetric@pharmacy.bg.ac.rs. 2. Department of Social Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Legislation, University of Belgrade - Faculty of Pharmacy, Vojvode Stepe 450, 11221 Belgrade, Serbia. 3. School of Pharmacy, University of Oslo, PO Box 1068, Blindern, 0316 Oslo, Norway; Division of Mental Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, PO Box 4404, Nydalen, N-0403 Oslo, Norway. 4. School of Pharmacy, University of Oslo, PO Box 1068, Blindern, 0316 Oslo, Norway.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) is well accepted for detecting symptoms of postnatal depression. The aim of this study was to examine psychometric properties and to evaluate structural models of the Serbian translation of EPDS in pregnant and postpartum women. METHODS: The original English version of the EPDS was translated into Serbian, and checked by means of back-translation. Data were collected via an anonymous online questionnaire posted on a Serbian website devoted to pregnancy topics. The study sample included 201 women (76 pregnant, 125 postpartum). The internal consistency of the scale was measured by Cronbach's α coefficient. Principal component analysis was used to determine scale dimensions while confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate model fit. FINDINGS: Cronbach α coefficient was 0.84 and 0.83 in pregnant and postpartum women, respectively, which indicated good internal consistency of the Serbian EPDS. Three dimensions of the scale were revealed in both groups of women. Goodness of fit indices described good and excellent model in pregnant and postpartum women, respectively. High level of depression symptoms (score ≥13) was recorded in 27.6% and 24.8% (p>0.05) of pregnant and postpartum women, respectively. Moderate level of depression symptoms (score 10-12) was recorded in 21.1% and 16.8% (p>0.05) of pregnant and postpartum women, respectively. CONCLUSION: The Serbian translation of the EPDS showed good consistency and good model characteristics in pregnant and postpartum women. However, cut-off values, sensitivity and specificity of the scale should be determined in the further studies with more representative samples of women.
BACKGROUND: The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) is well accepted for detecting symptoms of postnatal depression. The aim of this study was to examine psychometric properties and to evaluate structural models of the Serbian translation of EPDS in pregnant and postpartum women. METHODS: The original English version of the EPDS was translated into Serbian, and checked by means of back-translation. Data were collected via an anonymous online questionnaire posted on a Serbian website devoted to pregnancy topics. The study sample included 201 women (76 pregnant, 125 postpartum). The internal consistency of the scale was measured by Cronbach's α coefficient. Principal component analysis was used to determine scale dimensions while confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate model fit. FINDINGS: Cronbach α coefficient was 0.84 and 0.83 in pregnant and postpartum women, respectively, which indicated good internal consistency of the Serbian EPDS. Three dimensions of the scale were revealed in both groups of women. Goodness of fit indices described good and excellent model in pregnant and postpartum women, respectively. High level of depression symptoms (score ≥13) was recorded in 27.6% and 24.8% (p>0.05) of pregnant and postpartum women, respectively. Moderate level of depression symptoms (score 10-12) was recorded in 21.1% and 16.8% (p>0.05) of pregnant and postpartum women, respectively. CONCLUSION: The Serbian translation of the EPDS showed good consistency and good model characteristics in pregnant and postpartum women. However, cut-off values, sensitivity and specificity of the scale should be determined in the further studies with more representative samples of women.
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: Jelena Stojanov; Miodrag Stankovic; Olivera Zikic; Matija Stankovic; Aleksandar Stojanov Journal: Int J Psychiatry Med Date: 2020-12-15 Impact factor: 1.210
Authors: Felix Akpojene Ogbo; Osita Kingsley Ezeh; Mansi Vijaybhai Dhami; Sabrina Naz; Sarah Khanlari; Anne McKenzie; Kingsley Agho; Andrew Page; Jane Ussher; Janette Perz; John Eastwood Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-08-16 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Juan Carlos Sanchez-Garcia; María José Aguilar-Cordero; Maria Montiel-Troya; Ana Eugenia Marín-Jiménez; Jonathan Cortes-Martin; Raquel Rodriguez-Blanque Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-09-23 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Zuzana Škodová; Ľubica Bánovčinová; Eva Urbanová; Marián Grendár; Martina Bašková Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 3.390