Instruments to identify post-natal depression: Which methods have been the most extensively validated, in what setting and in which language?
Abstract
Abstract Objectives. To investigate which methods to identify post-natal depression are the most extensively validated, in what setting and in what language. Methods. A systematic search of the literature was undertaken to retrieve English and non-English language articles available until February 2007. This included searching 16 electronic databases, forward citation searching, personal communication with authors and inspection of reference lists. Results. A total of 60 studies (published in 64 articles) met the inclusion criteria. Four PND specific measures and nine generic depression (and sometimes anxiety) measures were found to have been validated against a diagnostic reference standard in pregnant or post-natal populations. The Edinburgh Post-natal Depression Scale (EPDS) was the most frequently validated method to identify women with PND. The EPDS has been translated and validated in 20 different languages. The majority of studies were undertaken at ante-natal clinics (n=15), after the birth in post-natal wards (n=12) or during post-natal visits or follow-up clinics (n=16). Conclusions. The EPDS is the most frequently researched method to identify PND and has been translated and validated in multiple different languages.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 10-item EPDS is the most commonly used depression screening tool in perinatal care.
“The 10 item EPDS is the most commonly used depression screening tool in perinatal care; cut-off values of 10 or higher and 13 or higher are most often used to identify women who might have depression.11 12 13 14 15”
EPDS cut-off values of 10 or higher and 13 or higher are most often used to identify women who might have depression.
“The 10 item EPDS is the most commonly used depression screening tool in perinatal care; cut-off values of 10 or higher and 13 or higher are most often used to identify women who might have depression.11 12 13 14 15”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 13 · Cited by 86
- Authors
- Hewitt, C. E., Gilbody, S. M., Mann, R., & Brealey, S.
- Affiliations
- University of York (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Hewitt, Catherine E.
- Venue
- International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2009-12-09
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 72-76
- ISSN
- 1365-1501 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-1788
- OpenAlex
- W2019614733
- Cited by
- 86
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 1.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (05/39/06)
- 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
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Keywords
- screening tool, psychometric validation, language translation, cross-cultural adaptation, pregnant women
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