Literature DB >> 25770478

What is the best tool for screening antenatal depression?

Tiago Castro E Couto1, Mayra Yara Martins Brancaglion2, Mauro Nogueira Cardoso2, Andressa Bergo Protzner2, Frederico Duarte Garcia3, Rodrigo Nicolato3, Regina Amélia Lopes P Aguiar4, Henrique Vitor Leite4, Humberto Corrêa3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Antenatal depression (AD) can have devastating consequences. No existing scales are specifically designed to measure it. Common practice is to adapt scales originally developed for other circumstances. We designed this study to validate and determine the psychometric values for AD screening in Brazil.
METHODS: We collected clinical and socio-demographic data in the second gestational trimester. The following instruments were also administered during that period: MINI-PLUS, EPDS, BDI and HAM-D.
RESULTS: At the time of assessment, 17.34% of the patients were depressed, and 31.98% met the diagnostic criteria for lifetime major depression. All instruments showed an area under the curve in a receiver operating characteristic analysis greater than 0.85, with the BDI achieving a 0.90 and being the best-performing screening instrument. A score ≥11 on the EPDS (81.58% sensitivity, 73.33% specificity), ≥15 on the BDI (82.00% sensitivity, 84.26% specificity) and ≥9 on the HAM-D (87.76% sensitivity, 74.60% specificity) revealed great dichotomy between depressed and non-depressed patients. Spearman׳s rank correlation coefficients (ρ) among the scales had good values (EPDS vs. BDI 0.79; BDI vs. HAM-D 0.70, and EPDS vs. HAM-D 0.67). LIMITATIONS: This study was transversal, assessing only women in the second gestational trimester. Results may be applicable only to the Brazilian population since psychometric properties may vary with the population under study. Major depression can amplify somatic symptomatology, affecting depressive rating scale data.
CONCLUSION: AD is highly prevalent in Brazil. To address the problem of under-recognition, physicians can use the EPDS, BDI and HAM-D to identify AD.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Antenatal depression; BDI; EPDS; HAM-D; Validation studies

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25770478     DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2015.02.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Affect Disord        ISSN: 0165-0327            Impact factor:   4.839


  11 in total

Review 1.  Epidemiology of maternal depression, risk factors, and child outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries.

Authors:  Bizu Gelaye; Marta B Rondon; Ricardo Araya; Michelle A Williams
Journal:  Lancet Psychiatry       Date:  2016-09-17       Impact factor: 27.083

Review 2.  Antepartum Depression and Preterm Birth: Pathophysiology, Epidemiology, and Disparities due to structural racism.

Authors:  Edmond D Shenassa; Lea G Widemann; Cole D Hunt
Journal:  Curr Psychiatry Rep       Date:  2021-02-25       Impact factor: 5.285

3.  Vitamin D levels and perinatal depressive symptoms in women at risk: a secondary analysis of the mothers, omega-3, and mental health study.

Authors:  Jennifer Anne Williams; Vivian C Romero; Chelsea M Clinton; Delia M Vazquez; Sheila M Marcus; Julie L Chilimigras; Susan E Hamilton; Lucy J Allbaugh; Anjel M Vahratian; Ronald M Schrader; Ellen L Mozurkewich
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2016-08-03       Impact factor: 3.007

4.  Post-traumatic stress in pregnant women with primary cytomegalovirus infection and risk of congenital infection in newborns.

Authors:  Francesco Vadini; Elisa Tracanna; Ennio Polilli; Monica Tontodonati; Elena Ricci; Francesca Santilli; Giustino Parruti
Journal:  BJPsych Open       Date:  2016-11-24

Review 5.  A systematic review of screening instruments for depression for use in antenatal services in low resource settings.

Authors:  Genesis Chorwe-Sungani; Jennifer Chipps
Journal:  BMC Psychiatry       Date:  2017-03-24       Impact factor: 3.630

6.  Psychometric properties of the Arabic version of EPDS and BDI-II as a screening tool for antenatal depression: evidence from Qatar.

Authors:  Sarah Naja; Noora Al-Kubaisi; Mohamad Chehab; Ayman Al-Dahshan; Nada Abuhashem; Iheb Bougmiza
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-09-13       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Performance of the 3-item screener, the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, the Hopkins Symptoms Checklist-15 and the Self-Reporting Questionnaire and Pregnancy Risk Questionnaire, in screening of depression in antenatal clinics in the Blantyre district of Malawi.

Authors:  Genesis Chorwe-Sungani; Jennifer Chipps
Journal:  Malawi Med J       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 0.875

8.  Factors associated with antenatal depression during the COVID-19 (SARS-CoV2) pandemic: A cross-sectional study in a cohort of Turkish pregnant women.

Authors:  Oznur Korukcu; Meltem Ozkaya; Omer Faruk Boran; Murat Bakacak
Journal:  Perspect Psychiatr Care       Date:  2021-03-26       Impact factor: 2.223

9.  Antenatal screening of depressive and manic symptoms in south Brazilian childbearing women: A transversal study in advance of the pandemic scenario.

Authors:  Fernanda Schier de Fraga; Beatriz Souza Lima Wan-Dall; Gabriel Henrique de Oliveira Garcia; Henrique Pandolfo; Adelyne Mayara Tavares da Silva Sequinel; Pedro Alvin; Eduardo Jonson Serman; Vivian Ferreira do Amaral
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-12-28       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Selective cutoff reporting in studies of the accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale: Comparison of results based on published cutoffs versus all cutoffs using individual participant data meta-analysis.

Authors:  Dipika Neupane; Brooke Levis; Parash M Bhandari; Brett D Thombs; Andrea Benedetti
Journal:  Int J Methods Psychiatr Res       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 4.182

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.