Cited by 102Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumMaternal and Neonatal HealthcarePregnancy-related medical research

Depression and anxiety in Singaporean high-risk pregnancies—prevalence and screening

Open access
Thiagayson, Pavaani, Krishnaswamy, Gita, Lim, May Li, Sung, Sharon Cohan, Haley, Charlotte Louise, Fung, Daniel Shuen Sheng, Allen, John Carson, Chen, Helen·2013·General Hospital Psychiatry

Abstract

Objective Data on psychiatric morbidity in high-risk pregnant Singaporean women are limited. This study aimed to establish the prevalence of antenatal depression and anxiety in high-risk pregnancies, compare the prevalence of antenatal depression in high-risk pregnancies vs. pregnancies of unspecified obstetric risk and examine the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) and State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) as screening tools for these disorders.Method Two hundred high-risk pregnant inpatients at a national public maternity hospital were included. Three psychometric assessment tools were used to evaluate all participants: the diagnostic Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview and the screening EPDS and STAI.Results Rates of major depression, minor depression, anxiety disorder (agoraphobia, generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder), and comorbid depression and anxiety were 11%, 7%, 12.5% and 5%, respectively. Major depression was more prevalent in high-risk pregnancies than in the historical cohort of unspecified obstetric risk (11% versus 4.3%). EPDS (cutoff 8/9) screens well for depression and anxiety in high-risk pregnancies (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve=0.82-0.87).Conclusion Antenatal depression and anxiety are highly prevalent in a sample of high-risk pregnant Singaporean women. EPDS performs well in screening for depression and anxiety in high-risk pregnant women, with further psychiatric assessment recommended for women with score ≥ 9.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2012.11.006

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The depression outcome meta-analysis included 17 studies of 1,998 women.

    “Seventeen studies of 1,998 women were included in the meta-analysis of depression outcome42–58 (Table 1) and 7 studies of 851 women included in the anxiety outcome42,43,45–47,58,59 (Table 2).”
  • Sample size calculations with power justifications were not reported by 13 included studies.

    “Although sample size calculations with power justifications were not reported by 13 investigators42–47,50,51,53–56,58 for their various primary outcomes, this does not diminish the validity of the reported prevalence of included studies.”
  • The depression outcome meta-analysis included 17 studies of 1,998 women.

    “Seventeen studies of 1,998 women were included in the meta-analysis of depression outcome42–58 (Table 1) and 7 studies of 851 women included in the anxiety outcome42,43,45–47,58,59 (Table 2).”
  • Fifteen studies did not measure effect of exposure over time, limiting conclusions about changes in prevalence over hospitalization.

    “Fifteen investigators44,46–59 did not measure effect of exposure over time, limiting the conclusions which can be draw regarding changes in prevalence of anxiety or depression over the duration of hospitalization.”
  • Sample size calculations with power justifications were not reported by 13 included studies.

    “Although sample size calculations with power justifications were not reported by 13 investigators42–47,50,51,53–56,58 for their various primary outcomes, this does not diminish the validity of the reported prevalence of included studies.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 68 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thiagayson, P., Krishnaswamy, G., Lim, M. L., Sung, S. C., Haley, C. L., Fung, D. S. S., Allen, J. C., & Chen, H.
Affiliations
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
  • KK Women's and Children's Hospital (SG)
Corresponding author
Thiagayson, Pavaani
Venue
General Hospital Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-03
Volume
35
Issue
2
Pages
112-116
ISSN
0163-8343 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2075852623
Cited by
102
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 3
FWCI
5.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • General Hospital Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • National University of Singapore (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (KL2TR000160)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pregnancy-related medical research
Keywords
antenatal depression, prenatal anxiety, high-risk pregnancy, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, screening validity, depression prevalence, anxiety disorders, comorbid depression and anxiety, Singaporean women
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Anxiety Disorders, Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Mass Screening, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Complications, Prospective Studies, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Singapore, Prevalence, Confidence Intervals, Odds Ratio, Pregnancy, High-Risk, Risk Assessment, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review