Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

A comparison of two measures to screen for emotional health difficulties during pregnancy.
J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2018 11; 36(5):463-475.JR

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the performance of a generic mood questionnaire (Matthey Generic Mood Questionnaire, MGMQ) against the established Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) in perinatal mental health mood screening.

BACKGROUND

Many perinatal clinical services use the EPDS to screen for depression, and some may consider using it to screen for anxiety. A new scale, the MGMQ, is designed to screen for a wide variety of emotions, not just depression or anxiety. It comprises a generic distress question, an impact question, as well as two clinical questions. Its brevity, and categorical scoring format, may also mean it is less susceptible than the EPDS to needing a myriad of different screen-positive scores for women from different cultures and during different perinatal time periods.

METHODS

Two hundred and ten Italian women in their third trimester of pregnancy completed the EPDS and MGMQ while attending routine antenatal clinic appointments or antenatal classes in the north of Italy, between 2015 and 2016.

RESULTS

The Distress and Lower Impact question thresholds showed acceptable receiver operating characteristics with the various EPDS screen positive thresholds. The Higher Impact question threshold, however, had lower than acceptable sensitivity. By contrast, the EPDS was poor at detecting women who on the MGMQ said that they were distressed and significantly bothered by their mood. The possible reasons for the discrepancies in screen-positive status between the two measures are discussed.

CONCLUSION

The MGMQ is a useful tool to aid in screening for a wide range of emotional difficulties in the perinatal period.

Authors+Show Affiliations

a South Western Sydney Local Health District & University of Sydney (School of Psychology) , Sydney , Australia.b Clinical and Experimental Sciences Department , Università degli Studi di Brescia , Brescia , Italy.

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

30048160

Citation

Matthey, Stephen, and Anna M. Della Vedova. "A Comparison of Two Measures to Screen for Emotional Health Difficulties During Pregnancy." Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, vol. 36, no. 5, 2018, pp. 463-475.
Matthey S, Della Vedova AM. A comparison of two measures to screen for emotional health difficulties during pregnancy. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2018;36(5):463-475.
Matthey, S., & Della Vedova, A. M. (2018). A comparison of two measures to screen for emotional health difficulties during pregnancy. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 36(5), 463-475. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646838.2018.1490497
Matthey S, Della Vedova AM. A Comparison of Two Measures to Screen for Emotional Health Difficulties During Pregnancy. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2018;36(5):463-475. PubMed PMID: 30048160.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - A comparison of two measures to screen for emotional health difficulties during pregnancy. AU - Matthey,Stephen, AU - Della Vedova,Anna M, Y1 - 2018/07/26/ PY - 2018/7/27/pubmed PY - 2019/11/2/medline PY - 2018/7/27/entrez KW - Perinatal depression KW - distress KW - measures KW - screening SP - 463 EP - 475 JF - Journal of reproductive and infant psychology JO - J Reprod Infant Psychol VL - 36 IS - 5 N2 - OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of a generic mood questionnaire (Matthey Generic Mood Questionnaire, MGMQ) against the established Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) in perinatal mental health mood screening. BACKGROUND: Many perinatal clinical services use the EPDS to screen for depression, and some may consider using it to screen for anxiety. A new scale, the MGMQ, is designed to screen for a wide variety of emotions, not just depression or anxiety. It comprises a generic distress question, an impact question, as well as two clinical questions. Its brevity, and categorical scoring format, may also mean it is less susceptible than the EPDS to needing a myriad of different screen-positive scores for women from different cultures and during different perinatal time periods. METHODS: Two hundred and ten Italian women in their third trimester of pregnancy completed the EPDS and MGMQ while attending routine antenatal clinic appointments or antenatal classes in the north of Italy, between 2015 and 2016. RESULTS: The Distress and Lower Impact question thresholds showed acceptable receiver operating characteristics with the various EPDS screen positive thresholds. The Higher Impact question threshold, however, had lower than acceptable sensitivity. By contrast, the EPDS was poor at detecting women who on the MGMQ said that they were distressed and significantly bothered by their mood. The possible reasons for the discrepancies in screen-positive status between the two measures are discussed. CONCLUSION: The MGMQ is a useful tool to aid in screening for a wide range of emotional difficulties in the perinatal period. SN - 1469-672X UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/30048160/A_comparison_of_two_measures_to_screen_for_emotional_health_difficulties_during_pregnancy_ L2 - http://www.diseaseinfosearch.org/result/5922 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -