Cited by 82Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and Access

Screening for perinatal anxiety disorders: Room to grow

Fairbrother, Nichole, Corbyn, Bryony, Thordarson, Dana S., Ma, Annie, Surm, Danika·2019·Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract

Background The anxiety and their related disorders (AD) are the most prevalent of all mental health conditions, disproportionately affecting women. The value of perinatal AD screening is well established but there is very limited evidence to support the applicability of existing anxiety screening instruments. To our knowledge, no previous studies have evaluated an AD screening instrument in a perinatal population using full gold standard methodology.Objective To assess the accuracy of the most commonly used and/or recommended screening tools for perinatal AD (i.e., the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) and its anxiety subscale (EPDS-3A), and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7 and 2-item Scales (GAD-7 and GAD-2) alongside a clinically derived alternative; the Anxiety Disorder - 13 (AD-13).Methods 310 Canadian women completed mood and anxiety questionnaires at approximately 3-months postpartum. Those scoring at/above cut-off on one or more questionnaire completed a diagnostic interview for depression and all AD (n = 115). The accuracy of each scale was assessed via ROC analyses.Results Only the AD-13 met the standard of a clinically useful screening measure, with an area under the curve (AUC) above 0.8. This was achieved with and without the inclusion of the related disorders. No other measure demonstrated an AUC above 0.8, either including or excluding the related disorders.Conclusions Neither the EPDS/EPDS 3-A, nor the GAD-7/GAD-2 can be recommended for widespread use as a perinatal AD screening tool. The high performance of the AD-13 is a good indication that an effective alternative is well within reach.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jad.2019.03.052

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fairbrother, N., Corbyn, B., Thordarson, D. S., Ma, A., & Surm, D.
Affiliations
University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
Fairbrother, Nichole
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-05
Volume
250
Pages
363-370
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2920835406
Cited by
82
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 1
FWCI
8.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Vancouver Foundation
  • National Institute for Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
anxiety screening, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, GAD-7, GAD-2, postpartum anxiety, diagnostic accuracy, receiver operating characteristic
MeSH terms
Patient Health Questionnaire, Adult, Anxiety Disorders, Canada, Female, Humans, Mass Screening, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Risk Factors, ROC Curve, Stress, Psychological, Prevalence, Women's Health, Depression, Postpartum, Postpartum Period

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