Comparative Analysis of the Performance of the Postpartum Depression Screening Scale With Two Other Depression Instruments

2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/163753
Category:
Abstract
Type:
Presentation
Title:
Comparative Analysis of the Performance of the Postpartum Depression Screening Scale With Two Other Depression Instruments
Author(s):
Beck, Cheryl
Author Details:
Cheryl Beck, DSNC, FAAN, Professor, University of Connecticut, School of Nursing, Storrs, Connecticut, USA, email: cheryl.beck@uconn.edu
Abstract:
Postpartum depression affects approximately 13% of mothers but up to 50% of all cases of this tragic illness can go undetected. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of a newly created instrument, the Postpartum Depression Screening Scale (PDSS), with the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) and a general depression scale, the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II). Three research questions were investigated: (1) Using the DSM-IV diagnostic interviews as the gold standard, how do the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of the PDSS, EPDS, and BDI-II compare? (2) How do the areas under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves for the PDSS, EPDS, and BDI-II compare? (3) What is the extent of agreement between the PDSS and EPDS, and the PDSS and BDI-II in identifying the same subgroups of mothers who have been diagnosed with major postpartum depression? In this methodological design a total of 150 new mothers completed these three instruments in random order, followed immediately by a DSM-IV diagnostic interview. Using the LABROC I program, the areas under each of the instrument's Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curves were compared to determine if they were significantly different. Eighteen (12%) of the women were diagnosed with major postpartum depression, 28 women (19%) with minor postpartum depression, and 104 women (69%) with no depression. Compared to the EPDS, the PDSS had a significantly larger area under the ROC curve when screening for major or minor postpartum depression. When using the published recommended cut-off scores for major depression for the three instruments, the PDSS achieved the highest combination of sensitivity, 94% and specificity, 98%. When detecting women with major or minor postpartum depression, the PDSS again yielded the highest combination of sensitivity (91%) and specificity (72%) of the three instruments. The PDSS identified 17 (94%) of the women diagnosed with major postpartum depression, the EPDS identified 14 of theses mothers (78%) and the BDI-II identified 10 of the 18 women (56%). All three instruments identified 10 of the 18 women (56%) diagnosed with major postpartum depression. Four women (22%) were identified by only two instruments, the PDSS and the EPDS. Three mothers (17%) were identified as suffering from major depression by only one of the three instruments, the PDSS. Lastly one woman (6%) who was diagnosed with major depression was not identified by any of the three instruments. In an attempt to uncover possible factors to explain why the PDSS was the only instrument that identified 17% of the women diagnosed with major postpartum depression, the profiles of how these 3 mothers completed each of the instruments was compared. If mothers identified as "most depressed" are substantially determined by the instrument used, the implications for both research and clinical practice are significant. Researchers and clinicians need to be aware of the differential sensitivity of depression instruments, which while supposedly measuring the same construct, are focused on different components of this mood disorder.
Repository Posting Date:
27-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
27-Oct-2011
Conference Date:
2001
Conference Name:
ENRS 13th Annual Scientific Sessions
Conference Host:
Eastern Nursing Research Society
Conference Location:
Atlantic City, New Jersey, USA
Note:
This is an abstract-only submission. If the author has submitted a full-text item based on this abstract, you may find it by browsing the Virginia Henderson Global Nursing e-Repository by author. If author contact information is available in this abstract, please feel free to contact him or her with your queries regarding this submission. Alternatively, please contact the conference host, journal, or publisher (according to the circumstance) for further details regarding this item. If a citation is listed in this record, the item has been published and is available via open-access avenues or a journal/database subscription. Contact your library for assistance in obtaining the as-published article.

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.type.categoryAbstracten_US
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleComparative Analysis of the Performance of the Postpartum Depression Screening Scale With Two Other Depression Instrumentsen_GB
dc.contributor.authorBeck, Cherylen_US
dc.author.detailsCheryl Beck, DSNC, FAAN, Professor, University of Connecticut, School of Nursing, Storrs, Connecticut, USA, email: cheryl.beck@uconn.eduen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/163753-
dc.description.abstractPostpartum depression affects approximately 13% of mothers but up to 50% of all cases of this tragic illness can go undetected. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of a newly created instrument, the Postpartum Depression Screening Scale (PDSS), with the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) and a general depression scale, the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II). Three research questions were investigated: (1) Using the DSM-IV diagnostic interviews as the gold standard, how do the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of the PDSS, EPDS, and BDI-II compare? (2) How do the areas under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves for the PDSS, EPDS, and BDI-II compare? (3) What is the extent of agreement between the PDSS and EPDS, and the PDSS and BDI-II in identifying the same subgroups of mothers who have been diagnosed with major postpartum depression? In this methodological design a total of 150 new mothers completed these three instruments in random order, followed immediately by a DSM-IV diagnostic interview. Using the LABROC I program, the areas under each of the instrument's Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curves were compared to determine if they were significantly different. Eighteen (12%) of the women were diagnosed with major postpartum depression, 28 women (19%) with minor postpartum depression, and 104 women (69%) with no depression. Compared to the EPDS, the PDSS had a significantly larger area under the ROC curve when screening for major or minor postpartum depression. When using the published recommended cut-off scores for major depression for the three instruments, the PDSS achieved the highest combination of sensitivity, 94% and specificity, 98%. When detecting women with major or minor postpartum depression, the PDSS again yielded the highest combination of sensitivity (91%) and specificity (72%) of the three instruments. The PDSS identified 17 (94%) of the women diagnosed with major postpartum depression, the EPDS identified 14 of theses mothers (78%) and the BDI-II identified 10 of the 18 women (56%). All three instruments identified 10 of the 18 women (56%) diagnosed with major postpartum depression. Four women (22%) were identified by only two instruments, the PDSS and the EPDS. Three mothers (17%) were identified as suffering from major depression by only one of the three instruments, the PDSS. Lastly one woman (6%) who was diagnosed with major depression was not identified by any of the three instruments. In an attempt to uncover possible factors to explain why the PDSS was the only instrument that identified 17% of the women diagnosed with major postpartum depression, the profiles of how these 3 mothers completed each of the instruments was compared. If mothers identified as "most depressed" are substantially determined by the instrument used, the implications for both research and clinical practice are significant. Researchers and clinicians need to be aware of the differential sensitivity of depression instruments, which while supposedly measuring the same construct, are focused on different components of this mood disorder.en_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-27T11:13:13Z-
dc.date.issued2011-10-27en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-27T11:13:13Z-
dc.conference.date2001en_US
dc.conference.nameENRS 13th Annual Scientific Sessionsen_US
dc.conference.hostEastern Nursing Research Societyen_US
dc.conference.locationAtlantic City, New Jersey, USAen_US
dc.description.noteThis is an abstract-only submission. If the author has submitted a full-text item based on this abstract, you may find it by browsing the Virginia Henderson Global Nursing e-Repository by author. If author contact information is available in this abstract, please feel free to contact him or her with your queries regarding this submission. Alternatively, please contact the conference host, journal, or publisher (according to the circumstance) for further details regarding this item. If a citation is listed in this record, the item has been published and is available via open-access avenues or a journal/database subscription. Contact your library for assistance in obtaining the as-published article.-
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.