A survey of the clinical acceptability of screening for postnatal depression in depressed and non-depressed women

Alan W Gemmill, Bronwyn Leigh, Jennifer Ericksen, Jeannette Milgrom, Alan W Gemmill, Bronwyn Leigh, Jennifer Ericksen, Jeannette Milgrom

Abstract

Background: Information on clinical acceptability is needed when making cost-utility decisions about health screening implementation. Despite being in use for two decades, most data on the clinical acceptability of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) come from qualitative reports, or include relatively small samples of depressed women. This study aimed to measure acceptability in a survey of a relatively large, community sample with a high representation of clinically depressed women.

Methods: Using mail, telephone and face-to-face interview, 920 postnatal women were approached to take part in a survey on the acceptability of the EPDS, including 601 women who had screened positive for depression and 245 who had received DSM-IV diagnoses of depression. Acceptability was measured on a 5-point Likert scale of comfort ranging from "Not Comfortable", through "Comfortable" to "Very Comfortable".

Results: The response rate was just over half for postal surveys (52%) and was 100% for telephone and face-to-face surveys (432, 21 and 26 respondents for postal, telephone and face-to-face surveys respectively) making 479 respondents in total. Of these, 81.2% indicated that screening with the EPDS had been in the range of "Comfortable" to "Very Comfortable". The other 18.8 % rated screening below the "Comfortable" point, including a small fraction (4.3%) who rated answering questions on the EPDS as "Not Comfortable" at the extreme end of the scale. Comfort was inversely related to EPDS score, but the absolute size of this effect was small. Almost all respondents (97%) felt that screening was desirable.

Conclusion: The EPDS had good acceptability in this study for depressed and non-depressed women. Women's views on the desirability of postnatal depression screening appear to be largely independent of personal level of comfort with screening. These results should be useful to policy-makers and are broadly supportive of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale as a suitable tool for universal perinatal depression screening.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Distribution of responses on a 5-point Likert scale of comfort level in being screened with the EPDS.

References

    1. Gale S, Harlow BL. Postpartum mood disorders: a review of clinical and epidemiological factors. J Psychosom Obst Gynecol. 2003;24:257–266.
    1. Josefsson A. Postpartum depression – epidemiological and biological aspects. Nord J Psychiat. 2003;57:395–396.
    1. Cox J, Holden J. Perinatal Mental Health A Guide to the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) London: Gaskell; 2003.
    1. Milgrom J, Martin PR, Negri LM. Treating Postnatal Depression A Psychological Approach for Health Care Practitioners. Chichester: Wiley; 1999.
    1. Vos T, Corry J, Haby MM, Carter R, Andrews G. Cost-effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy and drug interventions for major depression. Aust NZ J Psychiat. 2005;39:683–692. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1614.2005.01652.x.
    1. Valenstein M, Sandeep V, Zeber JE, Boehm K, Buttar A. The cost-utility of screening for depression in primary care. Ann Int Med. 2001;134:345–360.
    1. Cox J, Holden J, Sagovsky R. Detection of postnatal depression: development of a 10 item postnatal depression scale. Brit J Psychiat. 1987;150:782–786.
    1. Cartoux M, Meda N, Van de Perre P, Newell ML, de Vincenzi I, Dabis F, the Ghent International Working Group on Mother-to-child Transmission of HIV AIDS. 1998;12:2489–2493. doi: 10.1097/00002030-199818000-00019.
    1. Crang-Svalenius E, Dykes A, Jorgensen C. Maternal serum screening for Down syndrome – opinions on acceptance form Swedish women. Scand J Car Sci. 2003;17:30–34. doi: 10.1046/j.1471-6712.2003.00114.x.
    1. Liang W, Lawrence F, Burnett CB, Hwang Y, Freedman M, Trock BJ, Mandelblatt JS, Lippman ME. Acceptability of diagnostic tests for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2003;79:199–206. doi: 10.1023/A:1023914612152.
    1. Pimenta JM, Catchpole M, Rogers PA, Perkins E, Jackson N, Carlisle C, Randall S, Hopwood J, Hewitt G, Underhill G, Mallinson H, McLean L, Gleave T, Tobin J, Harindra V, Ghosh A. Opportunistic screening for genital chlamydial infection. 1: Acceptability of urine testing in primary and secondary healthcare settings. Sex Trans Inf. 2005;79:16–21. doi: 10.1136/sti.79.1.16.
    1. Murray L, Carothers AD. The validation of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale on a community sample. Brit J Psychiat. 1990;157:288–290.
    1. Holden JM. Using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale in clinical practice. In: Cox J, editor. Perinatal Psychiatry: Uses and Abuses of the EPDS. London: Gaskell; 1990.
    1. Shakespeare J, Blake F, Garcia J. A qualitative study of the acceptability of routine screening of postnatal depression using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Brit J Gen Practice. 2003;53:614–619.
    1. Buist A, Condon J, Brooks J, Speelman C, Milgrom J, Hayes B, Ellwood D, Barnett B, Kowalenko N, Matthey S, Austin M, Bilszta J. Acceptability of routine screening for postnatal depression: An Australia-wide study. J Affect Disorders. 2006;93:233–237. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2006.02.019.
    1. American Psychiatric Association . Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4. Washington; 1994.
    1. Leverton TJ, Elliott SA. Is the EPDS a magic wand?: 1. A comparison of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale and health visitor report as predictors of diagnosis on the Present State Examination. J Rep Inf Psychol. 2000;18:279–296.
    1. Milgrom J, Ericksen J, Negri L, Gemmill A. Screening for postnatal depression in routine primary care: Properties of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale in an Australian sample. Aust NZ J Psychiat. 2005;39:843–849.
    1. Boyce PM, Stubbs J, Todd A. The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale: validation for an Australian sample. Aust NZ J Psychiat. 1993;27:472–476.
    1. Simler S. An overview of content analysis. Prac Assess, Res Eval. 2001;7:17.
    1. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, editors . Cost-effectiveness in health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
    1. Goldie SJ, Weinstein MC, Kuntz KM, Freedberg KA. The costs, clinical benefits, and cost-effectiveness of screening for cervical cancer in HIV-infected women. Ann Int Med. 1999;103:97–107.
    1. Zhou XH, Obuchowski NA, McClish DK. Statistical Methods in Diagnostic Medicine. New York: Wiley; 2002.
    1. Haby MM, Carter R, Mihalopoulos C, Magnus A, Sanderson K, Andrews G, Vos T. Assessing cost-effectiveness – Mental health: introduction to the study and methods. Aust NZ J Psychiat. 2005;38:569–578. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1614.2004.01420.x.
    1. Dell DL. Clinical Updates in Women's Health Care. Vol. 1. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2002. Depression in women.
    1. Shakespeare J. Evaluation of screening for postnatal depression against the NSC handbook criteria. Working party document. 2002.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren