| Literature DB >> 35887543 |
Ahmed Waqas1, Siham Sikander1,2, Abid Malik3,4, Najia Atif5, Eirini Karyotaki6, Atif Rahman1.
Abstract
Perinatal depression is highly prevalent in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and is associated with adverse maternal and child health consequences. Task-shared psychological and psychosocial interventions for perinatal depression have demonstrated clinical and cost-effectiveness when delivered on a large scale. However, task-sharing approaches, especially in LMICs, require an effective mechanism, whereby clients who are not likely to benefit from such interventions are identified from the outset so that they can benefit from higher intensity treatments. Such a stratified approach can ensure that limited resources are utilized appropriately and effectively. The use of standardized and easy-to-implement algorithmic devices (e.g., nomograms) could help with such targeted dissemination of interventions. The present investigation posits a prognostic model and a nomogram to predict the prognosis of perinatal depression among women in rural Pakistan. The nomogram was developed to deliver stratified model of care in primary care settings by identifying those women who respond well to a non-specialist delivered intervention and those requiring specialist care. This secondary analysis utilized data from 903 pregnant women with depression who participated in a cluster randomized, controlled trial that tested the effectiveness of the Thinking Healthy Program in rural Rawalpindi, Pakistan. The participants were recruited from 40 union councils in two sub-districts of Rawalpindi and randomly assigned to intervention and enhanced usual care. Sixteen sessions of the THP intervention were delivered by trained community health workers to women with depression over pregnancy and the postnatal period. A trained assessment team used the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV current major depressive episode module to diagnose major depressive disorder at baseline and post-intervention. The intervention received by the participants emerged as the most significant predictor in the prognostic model. Among clinical factors, baseline severity of core-emotional symptoms emerged as an essential predictor, followed by atypical symptoms and insomnia. Higher severity of these symptoms was associated with a poorer prognosis. Other important predictors of a favorable prognosis included support from one's mother or mother-in-law, financial empowerment, higher socioeconomic class, and living in a joint family system. This prognostic model yielded acceptable discrimination (c-statistic = 0.75) and calibration to aid in personalized delivery of the intervention.Entities:
Keywords: Pakistan; nomogram; perinatal depression; prognosis; prognostic modeling
Year: 2022 PMID: 35887543 PMCID: PMC9320748 DOI: 10.3390/jpm12071046
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Pers Med ISSN: 2075-4426
Description of candidate predictors for inclusion in the initial prediction model.
| Characteristics | Subgroup | Mean (SD) | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome | ||||
| Perinatal women with depression post-intervention assessed using the DSM-IV criteria | Enhanced Usual Care | 211 | 52.8% | |
| Thinking Healthy Program | 97 | 23.2% | ||
| Maternal demographic characteristics | ||||
| Mother age at baseline | 26.74 (5.11) | |||
| Maternal education level | 4.06 (4.011) | |||
| Paternal education level | 7.02 (3.965) | |||
| Socioeconomic condition | ||||
| Socioeconomic class | Richest | 12 | 1.3% | |
| Rich | 81 | 9.0% | ||
| Normal | 343 | 38.0% | ||
| Poor | 270 | 29.9% | ||
| Poorest | 197 | 21.8% | ||
| Household debt | No | 371 | 41.1% | |
| Yes | 529 | 58.6% | ||
| Not reported | 3 | 0.3% | ||
| Sufficient money for food | No | 120 | 13.3% | |
| Yes | 783 | 86.7% | ||
| Sufficient money for basic needs | No | 189 | 20.9% | |
| Yes | 714 | 79.1% | ||
| Financial Empowerment | Not empowered | 425 | 47.1% | |
| Empowered | 478 | 52.9% | ||
| Family structure | ||||
| Parity | 0 | 171 | 18.9% | |
| 1 to 3 | 520 | 57.6% | ||
| More than 4 | 212 | 23.5% | ||
| Family structure | Nuclear | 373 | 41.3% | |
| Joint | 530 | 58.7% | ||
| Living with mother or mother-in-law | No | 451 | 49.9% | |
| Maternal | 59 | 6.5% | ||
| Paternal | 393 | 43.5% | ||
| Perceived levels of social support | 45.04 (16.44) | |||
| Clinical profile | ||||
| Hamilton depression scores at baseline | 14.63 (4.09) | |||
| Chronicity (months) | 5.15 (9.08) | |||
| Disability scores (BDQ) | 8.21 (2.69) | |||
| Global assessment of functioning (GAF) | 62.05 (5.22) | |||
| Insomnia symptom dimension of HDRS | 2.33 (1.81) | |||
| Somatic symptom dimension of HDRS | 2.47 (1.47) | |||
| Core emotional symptoms dimension of HDRS | 8.37 (.65) | |||
| Atypical symptoms dimension of HDRS | 0.17 (0.57) | |||
| Major perinatal life events | ||||
| Child death | None | 518 | 57.4% | |
| Yes | 385 | 42.6% | ||
| Still birth | None | 607 | 67.2% | |
| Yes | 296 | 32.8% | ||
| Treatment | ||||
| Enhanced Usual Care | 440 | 48.7% | ||
| Thinking Healthy Program | 463 | 51.3% | ||
Logistic regression analyses for predicting remission in depression.
| Variables | Coefficients | Robust S.E. | Coefficients Adjusted for Optimism | z | Predictor Importance |
| 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Socioeconomic class | 0.1495407 | 0.0909545 | 0.139072851 | 1.64 | 6 | 0.1 | (−0.0287269 to 0.3278083) |
| Maternal empowerment | −0.4992032 | 0.1969697 | −0.464258976 | −2.53 | 3 | 0.011 | (−0.8852568 to −0.1131496) |
| Living with mother or mother-in-law | |||||||
| Maternal | −0.0800688 | 0.3280223 | −0.074463984 | −0.24 | 4 | 0.807 | (−0.7229807 to 0.5628432) |
| Paternal | −0.4495611 | 0.2246094 | −0.418091823 | −2 | 0.045 | (−0.8899834 to −0.009388) | |
| Family structure | −0.1090834 | 0.230452 | 0.101447562 | −0.47 | 7 | 0.64 | (−0.5607609 to 0.3425942) |
| Symptom dimensions of depression | |||||||
| Core emotional symptoms | 0.1402178 | 0.0332881 | 0.130402554 | 4.21 | 2 | <0.001 | (0.0749744 to 0.2054612) |
| Insomnia | 0.1261017 | 0.0478054 | 0.117274581 | 2.64 | 5 | 0.008 | (0.0324048 to 0.2197985) |
| Atypical symptoms | 0.0794525 | 0.1272977 | 0.073890825 | 0.62 | 8 | 0.533 | (−0.1700464 to 0.3289514) |
| Treatment | −1.4283 | 0.208072 | −1.328319 | −6.86 | 1 | <0.001 | (−1.836114 to −0.2638574) |
| Constant | −1.372766 | 0.5657802 | −1.31 | −2.43 | 0.015 | (−2.481675 to −0.2638574) | |
| Linear predictor = −0.61 (SD 0.98); Linear predictor adjusted for optimism = −0.599 (0.91) | |||||||
Figure 1Importance of predictors in the final model presented as standardized dominance statistic.
Figure 2ROC curve presenting discriminatory ability of the prognostic model.
Figure 3PMCA plot presenting calibration of the prognostic model by comparing observed and expected outcomes.
Figure 4Nomogram presenting the prognostic model for use in the primary care setting.