Kerry Evans1, Helen Spiby2,3, C Jane Morrell2. 1. Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, UK. 2. School of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, UK. 3. School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Abstract
AIMS: To report a systematic review of the psychometric properties of self-report instruments to identify the symptoms of anxiety in pregnancy to help clinicians and researchers select the most suitable instrument. BACKGROUND: Excessive anxiety in pregnancy is associated with adverse birth outcomes, developmental and behavioural problems in infants and postnatal depression. Despite recommendations for routine psychological assessment in pregnancy, the optimal methods to identify anxiety in pregnancy have not been confirmed. DESIGN: Psychometric systematic review. DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature search of the multiple databases (1990-September 2014). REVIEW METHODS: Identification of self-report instruments to measure anxiety in pregnancy using COSMIN guidelines to assess studies reporting a psychometric evaluation of validity and reliability. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies were included. Studies took place in the UK, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Italy, Scandinavia, Spain and the Netherlands. Seventeen different instruments were identified. Measures of validity were reported in 19 papers and reliability in 16. The overall quality of the papers was rated as fair to excellent using the COSMIN checklist. Only one paper scored excellent in more than one category. CONCLUSION: Many instruments have been adapted for use in different populations to those for which they were designed. The State Trait Anxiety Inventory, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale have been tested more frequently than other instruments, yet require further assessment to confirm their value for use in pregnancy.
AIMS: To report a systematic review of the psychometric properties of self-report instruments to identify the symptoms of anxiety in pregnancy to help clinicians and researchers select the most suitable instrument. BACKGROUND:Excessive anxiety in pregnancy is associated with adverse birth outcomes, developmental and behavioural problems in infants and postnatal depression. Despite recommendations for routine psychological assessment in pregnancy, the optimal methods to identify anxiety in pregnancy have not been confirmed. DESIGN: Psychometric systematic review. DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature search of the multiple databases (1990-September 2014). REVIEW METHODS: Identification of self-report instruments to measure anxiety in pregnancy using COSMIN guidelines to assess studies reporting a psychometric evaluation of validity and reliability. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies were included. Studies took place in the UK, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Italy, Scandinavia, Spain and the Netherlands. Seventeen different instruments were identified. Measures of validity were reported in 19 papers and reliability in 16. The overall quality of the papers was rated as fair to excellent using the COSMIN checklist. Only one paper scored excellent in more than one category. CONCLUSION: Many instruments have been adapted for use in different populations to those for which they were designed. The State Trait Anxiety Inventory, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale have been tested more frequently than other instruments, yet require further assessment to confirm their value for use in pregnancy.
Authors: Sara Sammallahti; Andrea P Cortes Hidalgo; Charlotte A M Cecil; Henning Tiemeier; Jari Lahti; Samuli Tuominen; Anni Malmberg; Rosa H Mulder; Kelly J Brunst; Silvia Alemany; Nancy S McBride; Paul Yousefi; Jonathan A Heiss; Nia McRae; Christian M Page; Jianping Jin; Giancarlo Pesce; Doretta Caramaschi; Sheryl L Rifas-Shiman; Nastassja Koen; Charleen D Adams; Maria C Magnus; Nour Baïz; Andrew Ratanatharathorn; Darina Czamara; Siri E Håberg; Elena Colicino; Andrea A Baccarelli; Andres Cardenas; Dawn L DeMeo; Deborah A Lawlor; Caroline L Relton; Janine F Felix; Marinus H van IJzendoorn; Marian J Bakermans-Kranenburg; Eero Kajantie; Katri Räikkönen; Jordi Sunyer; Gemma C Sharp; Lotte C Houtepen; Ellen A Nohr; Thorkild I A Sørensen; Martha M Téllez-Rojo; Robert O Wright; Isabella Annesi-Maesano; John Wright; Marie-France Hivert; Rosalind J Wright; Heather J Zar; Dan J Stein; Stephanie J London Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 13.437
Authors: Myrthe G B M Boekhorst; Annemerle Beerthuizen; Maarten Van Son; Veerle Bergink; Victor J M Pop Journal: Arch Womens Ment Health Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 3.633
Authors: Lianne P Hulsbosch; Ivan Nyklíček; Eva S Potharst; Myrthe Gbm Boekhorst; Victor Jm Pop Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2020-11-23 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Selina Nath; Elizabeth G Ryan; Kylee Trevillion; Debra Bick; Jill Demilew; Jeannette Milgrom; Andrew Pickles; Louise M Howard Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-09-05 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Katherine Stuart Bright; Jill M Norris; Nicole L Letourneau; Melanie King Rosario; Shahirose S Premji Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2018-10-11 Impact factor: 4.157