Validating the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale Against the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition for Use in Uganda.
DSM-5
EPDS
MINI
postpartum depression
validation
Journal
International journal of women's health
ISSN: 1179-1411
Titre abrégé: Int J Womens Health
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101531698
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
03
08
2023
accepted:
08
11
2023
medline:
29
11
2023
pubmed:
29
11
2023
entrez:
29
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) is a widely acknowledged screening tool for postpartum depression (PPD) globally, but its validation in Uganda has been lacking. This study aimed to assess the EPDS's accuracy as a PPD screening tool in Uganda compared to the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI 7.0.2) based on the DSM-5. This was a descriptive cross-sectional study conducted at a referral hospital and two peri-urban primary care postpartum clinics in rural southwestern Uganda. We enrolled 287 mothers aged 18 to 49 at their six-week postpartum visit. The EPDS was used for initial screening, and the MINI 7.0.2 was employed for clinical diagnosis. The study used the Runyankore-Rukiga language version of the EPDS and collected data from November 11, 2019, to June 10, 2020, with the MINI 7.0.2 as the reference standard. The overall PPD prevalence was 29.5%, as opposed to 26.5% with EPDS and MINI 7.0.2 DSM-5 criteria (p = 0.239). The EPDS demonstrated a sensitivity of 86.8%, specificity of 92.1%, positive predictive value of 80.5%, and negative predictive value of 94.9%. A cutoff score of ≥10 was found to be the most effective acceptable point after drawing the AUC of ROC and determining the most appropriate point using Youden's index. The area under the ROC curve, indicating the scale's overall performance against MINI 7.0.2, was 0.89 for Bwizibwera HCIV, 0.97 for Kinoni HCIV, and 0.84 for MRRH. In conclusion, the EPDS can effectively screen for postpartum depression in southwestern Uganda using a cutoff score of ≥10. It exhibits strong diagnostic performance in correctly identifying PPD in postpartum mothers.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) is a widely acknowledged screening tool for postpartum depression (PPD) globally, but its validation in Uganda has been lacking. This study aimed to assess the EPDS's accuracy as a PPD screening tool in Uganda compared to the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI 7.0.2) based on the DSM-5.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
This was a descriptive cross-sectional study conducted at a referral hospital and two peri-urban primary care postpartum clinics in rural southwestern Uganda. We enrolled 287 mothers aged 18 to 49 at their six-week postpartum visit. The EPDS was used for initial screening, and the MINI 7.0.2 was employed for clinical diagnosis. The study used the Runyankore-Rukiga language version of the EPDS and collected data from November 11, 2019, to June 10, 2020, with the MINI 7.0.2 as the reference standard.
Results
UNASSIGNED
The overall PPD prevalence was 29.5%, as opposed to 26.5% with EPDS and MINI 7.0.2 DSM-5 criteria (p = 0.239). The EPDS demonstrated a sensitivity of 86.8%, specificity of 92.1%, positive predictive value of 80.5%, and negative predictive value of 94.9%. A cutoff score of ≥10 was found to be the most effective acceptable point after drawing the AUC of ROC and determining the most appropriate point using Youden's index. The area under the ROC curve, indicating the scale's overall performance against MINI 7.0.2, was 0.89 for Bwizibwera HCIV, 0.97 for Kinoni HCIV, and 0.84 for MRRH. In conclusion, the EPDS can effectively screen for postpartum depression in southwestern Uganda using a cutoff score of ≥10. It exhibits strong diagnostic performance in correctly identifying PPD in postpartum mothers.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38020941
doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S427752
pii: 427752
pmc: PMC10676086
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1821-1832Informations de copyright
© 2023 Atuhaire et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no competing interest in this work.
Références
BMJ Open. 2016 Mar 10;6(3):e009443
pubmed: 26966055
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2003 Apr;107(4):251-9
pubmed: 12662247
J Affect Disord. 1999 May;53(2):137-41
pubmed: 10360408
J Affect Disord. 2009 Feb;113(1-2):109-17
pubmed: 18614241
Arch Womens Ment Health. 2017 Dec;20(6):789-790
pubmed: 29101480
J Affect Disord. 2015 May 1;176:95-105
pubmed: 25704562
World J Psychiatry. 2015 Mar 22;5(1):103-11
pubmed: 25815259
Br J Psychiatry. 2019 Mar;214(3):127-129
pubmed: 30774059
BMC Psychiatry. 2017 Mar 24;17(1):112
pubmed: 28340609
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021 Jul 12;21(1):503
pubmed: 34247576
J Affect Disord. 2008 Jun;108(3):251-62
pubmed: 18055019
J Affect Disord. 2017 Aug 15;218:238-245
pubmed: 28477502
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2009 May;119(5):350-64
pubmed: 19298573
J Affect Disord. 2006 Jul;93(1-3):233-7
pubmed: 16647761
Health Technol Assess. 2009 Jul;13(36):1-145, 147-230
pubmed: 19624978
J Affect Disord. 2010 Apr;122(1-2):102-8
pubmed: 19615753
BMJ. 2020 Nov 11;371:m4022
pubmed: 33177069
Psychol Med. 2003 Oct;33(7):1161-7
pubmed: 14580070
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014 Jul;126(1):74-7
pubmed: 24786139
Nurs Res. 2001 May-Jun;50(3):155-64
pubmed: 11393637
Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2012 Jul;33(7):445-57
pubmed: 22757597
Acad Emerg Med. 1996 Sep;3(9):895-900
pubmed: 8870764
Int J Womens Health. 2015 Jul 08;7:677-84
pubmed: 26185471
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016 Apr 04;16:72
pubmed: 27044437
BMC Res Notes. 2016 Dec 8;9(1):506
pubmed: 27931248
Br J Psychiatry. 1987 Jun;150:782-6
pubmed: 3651732
Pan Afr Med J. 2020 Sep 25;37:89
pubmed: 33244352
J Affect Disord. 1996 Jul 29;39(3):185-9
pubmed: 8856422
Arch Womens Ment Health. 2010 Jun;13(3):201-6
pubmed: 19760051
Midwifery. 2012 Jun;28(3):374-9
pubmed: 21601966