Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Psychiatry
Published in: BMC Psychiatry 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

A systematic review of screening instruments for depression for use in antenatal services in low resource settings

Authors: Genesis Chorwe-Sungani, Jennifer Chipps

Published in: BMC Psychiatry | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

In low resource settings, short, valid and reliable instruments with good high sensitivity and specificity are essential for the screening of depression in antenatal care. A review of published evidence on screening instruments for depression for use in antenatal services in low resource settings was conducted. The aim of this review was to appraise the best available evidence on screening instruments suitable for detecting depression in antenatal care in low resource settings.

Methods

Searching, selection, quality assessment, and data abstraction was done by two reviewers. ScienceDirect, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed, SABINET and PsychARTICLES databases were searched using relevant search terms. Retrieved studies were evaluated for relevancy (whether psychometric data were reported) and quality. Data were synthesised and sensitivity and specificity of instruments were pooled using forest plots.

Results

Eleven articles were included in the review. The methodological quality ranged from adequate to excellent. The review found 7 tools with varying levels of accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, including the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, Beck Depression Index, Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale 20, Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, Hopkins Symptoms Checklist-25, Kessler Psychological Distress Scale and Self-Reporting Questionnaire. The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale was most common and had the highest level of accuracy (AUC = .965) and sensitivity.

Conclusion

This review suggests that the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale can be a suitable instrument of preference for screening antenatal depression in low resource settings because of the reported level of accuracy, sensitivity and specificity.

Prospero registration

Literature
1.
e Couto TC, MMY B, Cardoso MN, Protzner AB, Garcia FD, Nicolato R, et al. What is the best tool for screening antenatal depression? J Affect Disord. 2015;178:12–7.CrossRef
2.
Stewart R, Umar E, Tomenson B, Creed F. A cross-sectional study of antenatal depression and associated factors in Malawi. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2014;17(2):145–54.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Rochat TJ, Tomlinson M, Newell M-L, Stein A. Detection of antenatal depression in rural HIV-affected populations with short and ultrashort versions of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS). Arch Womens Ment Health. 2013;16(5):401–10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Fernandes M, Srinivasan K, Stein A, Menezes G, Sumithra R, Ramchandani P. Assessing prenatal depression in the rural developing world: a comparison of two screening measures. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2011;14(3):209–16.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Faisal-Cury A, Menezes PR. Antenatal depression strongly predicts postnatal depression in primary health care. Rev Bras Psiquiatr. 2012;34(4):446–50.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Rahman A, Surkan PJ, Cayetano CE, Rwagatare P, Dickson KE. Grand Challenges: Integrating Maternal Mental Health into Maternal and Child Health Programmes. PLoS Med. 2013;10(5):1–7.CrossRef
7.
Lancaster CA, Gold KJ, Flynn HA, Yoo H, Marcus SM, Davis MM. Risk factors for depressive symptoms during pregnancy: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(1):5–14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Mathibe-Neke JM, Rothberg A, Langley G. The perception of midwives regarding psychosocial risk assessment during antenatal care. Health SA Gesondheid (Online). 2014;19(1):01–9.
9.
Pilowsky DJ, Wu L-T. Screening instruments for substance use and brief interventions targeting adolescents in primary care: a literature review. Addict Behav. 2013;38(5):2146–53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig L, et al. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. Radiology. 2015;277(3):826–32.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Goldstuck ND. Healthcare in Low-resource Settings: the individual perspective. Healthcare in Low-resource Settings. 2014;2(2):4572.CrossRef
12.
13.
Lahariya C. Introducing Healthcare in Low-resource Settings. Healthcare Low-Resource Settings. 2013;1(1):1.CrossRef
14.
Welch VA, Petticrew M, O’Neill J, Waters E, Armstrong R, Bhutta ZA, et al. Health equity: evidence synthesis and knowledge translation methods. Syst Rev. 2013;2(1):1.CrossRef
15.
Trikalinos TA, Balion CM, Coleman CI, Griffith L, Santaguida PL, Vandermeer B, et al. Meta-Analysis of Test Performance When There Is a “Gold Standard”. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(1):56–66.CrossRefPubMedCentral
16.
Pettersson A, Boström KB, Gustavsson P, Ekselius L. Which instruments to support diagnosis of depression have sufficient accuracy? A systematic review. Nord J Psychiatry. 2015;69(7):497–508.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3(1):25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Radakovic R, Harley C, Abrahams S, Starr JM. A systematic review of the validity and reliability of apathy scales in neurodegenerative conditions. Int Psychogeriatr. 2015;27(06):903–23.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Onwuegbuzie AJ, Leech NL, Collins KM. Qualitative analysis techniques for the review of the literature. Qual Rep. 2012;17(28):1–28.
20.
Austin MP, Lumley J. Antenatal screening for postnatal depression: a systematic review. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2003;107(1):10–7.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Akena D, Joska J, Obuku EA, Amos T, Musisi S, Stein DJ. Comparing the accuracy of brief versus long depression screening instruments which have been validated in low and middle income countries: a systematic review. BMC Psychiatry. 2012;12(1):187.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Spies G, Stein D, Roos A, Faure S, Mostert J, Seedat S, et al. Validity of the Kessler 10 (K-10) in detecting DSM-IV defined mood and anxiety disorders among pregnant women. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2009;12(2):69–74.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Kaaya SF, Fawzi M, Mbwambo J, Lee B, Msamanga GI, Fawzi W. Validity of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 amongst HIV-positive pregnant women in Tanzania. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2002;106(1):9–19.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Tsai AC, Scott JA, Hung KJ, Zhu JQ, Matthews LT, Psaros C, et al. Reliability and validity of instruments for assessing perinatal depression in African settings: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e82521.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Adewuya AO, Ola BA, Dada AO, Fasoto OO. Validation of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale as a screening tool for depression in late pregnancy among Nigerian women. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;27(4):267–72.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Rochat TJ. Depression among pregnant women testing for HIV in rural South Africa. Doctoral Thesis. Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch; 2011.
27.
Abiodun O. A validity study of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale in general hospital units and a community sample in Nigeria. Br J Psychiatry. 1994;165(5):669–72.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Abiodun O, Adetoro O, Ogunbode O. Psychiatric morbidity in a pregnant population in Nigeria. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 1993;15(2):125–8.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Aderibigbe Y, Gureje O. The validity of the 28-item General Health Questionnaire in a Nigerian antenatal clinic. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 1992;27(6):280–3.PubMed
30.
Nhiwatiwa S, Patel V, Acuda W. Predicting postnatal mental disorder with a screening questionnaire: a prospective cohort study from Zimbabwe. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52(4):262–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Adewuya AO, Ola BA, Aloba OO, Dada AO, Fasoto OO. Prevalence and correlates of depression in late pregnancy among Nigerian women. Depress Anxiety. 2007;24(1):15–21.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Tsai A, Tomlinson M, Dewing S, Roux I, Harwood J, Chopra M, et al. Antenatal depression case finding by community health workers in South Africa: feasibility of a mobile phone application. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2014;17(5):423–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Vythilingum B, Field S, Kafaar Z, Baron E, Stein D, Sanders L, et al. Screening and pathways to maternal mental health care in a South African antenatal setting. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2013;16(5):371–9.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Stewart R, Umar E, Tomenson B, Creed F. Validation of screening tools for antenatal depression in Malawi—A comparison of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale and Self Reporting Questionnaire. J Affect Disord. 2013;150(3):1041–7.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Natamba BK, Achan J, Arbach A, Oyok TO, Ghosh S, Mehta S, et al. Reliability and validity of the center for epidemiologic studies-depression scale in screening for depression among HIV-infected and-uninfected pregnant women attending antenatal services in northern Uganda: a cross-sectional study. BMC Psychiatry. 2014;14(1):1.CrossRef
36.
Alvarado-Esquivel C, Sifuentes-Alvarez A, Salas-Martinez C. Validation of the Edinburgh postpartum depression scale in a population of adult pregnant women in Mexico. J Clin. Med. Res. 2014;6(5):374.PubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Alvarado-Esquivel C, Sifuentes-Alvarez A, Salas-Martinez C. The use of the edinburgh postpartum depression scale in a population of teenager pregnant women in Mexico: a validation study. Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health. 2014;10:129–32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Spies G, Stein D, Roos A, Faure S, Mostert J, Seedat S, et al. Validity of the Kessler 10 (K-10) in detecting DSM-IV defined mood and anxiety disorders among pregnant women. Archives of women's mental health. 2009;12(2):69–74.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Martins Cde S, Motta JV, Quevedo LA, Matos MB, Pinheiro KA, Souza LD, et al. Comparison of two instruments to track depression symptoms during pregnancy in a sample of pregnant teenagers in Southern Brazil. J Affect Disord. 2015;177:95–100.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Fischer JE, Bachmann LM, Jaeschke R. A readers' guide to the interpretation of diagnostic test properties: clinical example of sepsis. Intensive Care Med. 2003;29(7):1043–51.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Schriger DL, Altman DG, Vetter JA, Heafner T, Moher D. Forest plots in reports of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study reviewing current practice. Int J Epidemiol. 2010;39(2):421–9.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Tran TD, Tran T, La B, Lee D, Rosenthal D, Fisher J. Screening for perinatal common mental disorders in women in the north of Vietnam: a comparison of three psychometric instruments. J Affect Disord. 2011;133(1):281–93.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Gibson J, McKenzie-McHarg K, Shakespeare J, Price J, Gray R. A systematic review of studies validating the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale in antepartum and postpartum women. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2009;119(5):350–64.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011, vol. 4. Chichester: Wiley; 2011.
45.
Beck AT, Ward C, Mendelson M. Beck depression inventory (BDI). Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1961;4(6):561–71.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Kessler R, Mroczek D. Kessler psychological distress scale (K10). Boston: Harvard Medical School; 1996.
47.
Radloff LS. The CES-D scale a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas. 1977;1(3):385–401.CrossRef
48.
Derogatis LR, Lipman RS, Rickels K, Uhlenhuth EH, Covi L. The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL): A self-report symptom inventory. Behav Sci. 1974;19(1):1–15.CrossRefPubMed
49.
WHO. A user’s guide to the Self Reporting Questionnaire (SRQ). Geneva: World Health Organization; 1994.
50.
51.
Zhu W, Zeng N, Wang N. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, associated confidence interval and ROC analysis with practical SAS® implementations. 2010:1–9.
52.
Dinnes J, Deeks J, Kirby J, Roderick P. A methodological review of how heterogeneity has been examined in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9(12):1–128.CrossRef
53.
BOLDER Research Group. Better Outcomes through Learning, Data, Engagement, and Research (BOLDER)–a system for improving evidence and clinical practice in low and middle income countries. F1000Research. 2016;5:693.
Metadata
Title
A systematic review of screening instruments for depression for use in antenatal services in low resource settings
Authors
Genesis Chorwe-Sungani
Jennifer Chipps
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Psychiatry / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-244X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-017-1273-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Psychiatry 1/2017 Go to the issue

Study protocol

Shared decision making PLUS – a cluster-randomized trial with inpatients suffering from schizophrenia (SDM-PLUS)

Study protocol

Study protocol of the ASD-Net, the German research consortium for the study of Autism Spectrum Disorder across the lifespan: from a better etiological understanding, through valid diagnosis, to more effective health care

Research article

The role of ethnicity in pathways to emergency psychiatric services for clients with psychosis

Research article

Trends in GP prescribing of psychotropic medications among young patients aged 16–24 years: a case study analysis

Research article

Factors related to the improvement in quality of life for depressed inpatients treated with fluoxetine

Research article

The factor structures and correlates of PTSD in post-conflict Timor-Leste: an analysis of the Harvard Trauma Questionnaire