Journal of affective disorders · 2011
A comparison of three screening tools to identify perinatal depression among low-income African American women.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tandon S Darius, Cluxton-Keller Fallon, Leis Julie, Le Huynh-Nhu, Perry Deborah F
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the current study was to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of three depression screening tools among a low-income African American population of pregnant and recently delivered women enrolled in home visitation programs in a low-income urban community.
METHODS: Ninety-five women enrolled in home visitation programs-32 who were pregnant and 63 with a child <6 months comprise the study sample. Each woman completed a structured clinical interview and three depression screening tools-the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), and Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II).
RESULTS: Over a quarter of women (28.4%) were experiencing major depression. Each screening tool was highly accurate in detecting major depression and major or minor depression among prenatal and postpartum women, with areas under the curve (AUCs) >0.90. Sensitivities of all screening tools were improved when using cutoffs lower than those considered standard by instrument developers.
LIMITATIONS: Participants were recruited from home visitation programs in an urban context which may limit generalizability to other populations of low-income African American women. Given that no women during pregnancy met criteria for minor depression, it was not possible to determine optimal prenatal cutoff scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Three depression screening tools-the EPDS, CES-D, and BDI-II-appear to be reliable and brief assessments of major and minor depression among low-income African American perinatal women. Providers using these tools should consider using lower cutoff scores to most effectively identify women in need of depression treatment.
METHODS: Ninety-five women enrolled in home visitation programs-32 who were pregnant and 63 with a child <6 months comprise the study sample. Each woman completed a structured clinical interview and three depression screening tools-the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), and Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II).
RESULTS: Over a quarter of women (28.4%) were experiencing major depression. Each screening tool was highly accurate in detecting major depression and major or minor depression among prenatal and postpartum women, with areas under the curve (AUCs) >0.90. Sensitivities of all screening tools were improved when using cutoffs lower than those considered standard by instrument developers.
LIMITATIONS: Participants were recruited from home visitation programs in an urban context which may limit generalizability to other populations of low-income African American women. Given that no women during pregnancy met criteria for minor depression, it was not possible to determine optimal prenatal cutoff scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Three depression screening tools-the EPDS, CES-D, and BDI-II-appear to be reliable and brief assessments of major and minor depression among low-income African American perinatal women. Providers using these tools should consider using lower cutoff scores to most effectively identify women in need of depression treatment.