Psychometric evaluation of the Japanese Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale for screening postpartum anxiety.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Frontiers in Psychiatry Pub Date : 2025-09-24 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1659497
Ekachaeryanti Zain, Yuichiro Watanabe, Shinpei Takabayashi, Leakhena Por, Saori Fujita, Sachie Moriyama, Aiko Honma, Naoki Fukui, Shuken Boku
{"title":"Psychometric evaluation of the Japanese Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale for screening postpartum anxiety.","authors":"Ekachaeryanti Zain, Yuichiro Watanabe, Shinpei Takabayashi, Leakhena Por, Saori Fujita, Sachie Moriyama, Aiko Honma, Naoki Fukui, Shuken Boku","doi":"10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1659497","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite the acknowledged importance of addressing postpartum anxiety alongside postpartum depression, standardized screening tools specifically developed for this purpose remain limited.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to validate the anxiety factor of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) and to determine optimal cutoff scores for screening postpartum anxiety.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>EPDS and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) were collected from 100 Japanese women at one month postpartum at Niigata University Medical and Dental Hospital between May 18, 2021, and December 28, 2022, using random convenience and purposive sampling. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on data from 84 participants to test six previously proposed EPDS factor models, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed on data from 83 participants to determine area under the curve (AUC) values and cutoff scores. The EPDS anxiety subscales with three items (EPDS-3A) and four items (EPDS-4A) were separately evaluated as predictor variables, with STAI state and trait anxiety as criterion measures. We assessed accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All models with two-factor and three-factor showed a good fit to the data, with two models with EPDS-3A being superior among other models (comparative fit index = 1.000, root mean square error of approximation = 0.001). ROC analyses indicated good testing accuracy of the EPDS anxiety subscales for detecting both state and trait anxiety. For EPDS-3A, the AUCs were 0.832 (95% CI 0.735-0.930) for state anxiety with an optimal cutoff of ≥3 (sensitivity 79.2%, specificity 79.7%), and 0.912 (95% CI 0.837-0.988) for trait anxiety with an optimal cutoff of ≥4 (sensitivity 82.4%, specificity 84.8%). For EPDS-4A, the AUCs were 0.833 (95% CI 0.736-0.930) for state anxiety with an optimal cutoff of ≥4 (sensitivity 79.2%, specificity 71.2%), and 0.935 (95% CI 0.867-1.000) for trait anxiety with an optimal cutoff of ≥5 (sensitivity 88.2%, specificity 87.9%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both the EPDS-3A and EPDS-4A demonstrated good model fit and screening accuracy for anxiety at one month postpartum. Integrating anxiety screening into routine postpartum care may improve maternal mental health outcomes. Future studies involving clinical settings and larger cohort studies are recommended to improve external validity.</p>","PeriodicalId":12605,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Psychiatry","volume":"16 ","pages":"1659497"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12504224/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1659497","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Despite the acknowledged importance of addressing postpartum anxiety alongside postpartum depression, standardized screening tools specifically developed for this purpose remain limited.

Objective: This study aimed to validate the anxiety factor of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) and to determine optimal cutoff scores for screening postpartum anxiety.

Methods: EPDS and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) were collected from 100 Japanese women at one month postpartum at Niigata University Medical and Dental Hospital between May 18, 2021, and December 28, 2022, using random convenience and purposive sampling. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on data from 84 participants to test six previously proposed EPDS factor models, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed on data from 83 participants to determine area under the curve (AUC) values and cutoff scores. The EPDS anxiety subscales with three items (EPDS-3A) and four items (EPDS-4A) were separately evaluated as predictor variables, with STAI state and trait anxiety as criterion measures. We assessed accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity.

Results: All models with two-factor and three-factor showed a good fit to the data, with two models with EPDS-3A being superior among other models (comparative fit index = 1.000, root mean square error of approximation = 0.001). ROC analyses indicated good testing accuracy of the EPDS anxiety subscales for detecting both state and trait anxiety. For EPDS-3A, the AUCs were 0.832 (95% CI 0.735-0.930) for state anxiety with an optimal cutoff of ≥3 (sensitivity 79.2%, specificity 79.7%), and 0.912 (95% CI 0.837-0.988) for trait anxiety with an optimal cutoff of ≥4 (sensitivity 82.4%, specificity 84.8%). For EPDS-4A, the AUCs were 0.833 (95% CI 0.736-0.930) for state anxiety with an optimal cutoff of ≥4 (sensitivity 79.2%, specificity 71.2%), and 0.935 (95% CI 0.867-1.000) for trait anxiety with an optimal cutoff of ≥5 (sensitivity 88.2%, specificity 87.9%).

Conclusion: Both the EPDS-3A and EPDS-4A demonstrated good model fit and screening accuracy for anxiety at one month postpartum. Integrating anxiety screening into routine postpartum care may improve maternal mental health outcomes. Future studies involving clinical settings and larger cohort studies are recommended to improve external validity.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

日本爱丁堡产后抑郁量表筛查产后焦虑的心理测量学评价。
背景:尽管产后焦虑和产后抑郁的重要性得到公认,但专门为此目的开发的标准化筛查工具仍然有限。目的:本研究旨在验证爱丁堡产后抑郁量表(EPDS)的焦虑因子,并确定筛查产后焦虑的最佳截止分值。方法:采用随机抽样和目的抽样的方法,于2021年5月18日至2022年12月28日在新泻大学医学院口腔医院采集100名产后1个月的日本妇女的EPDS和状态-特质焦虑量表(STAI)。对84名参与者的数据进行验证性因子分析(CFA),以检验先前提出的6种EPDS因子模型;对83名参与者的数据进行受试者工作特征(ROC)分析,以确定曲线下面积(AUC)值和截止分数。EPDS焦虑分量表3项(EPDS- 3a)和4项(EPDS- 4a)分别作为预测变量,以STAI状态和特质焦虑作为判据。我们评估了准确性、敏感性和特异性。结果:两因素和三因素模型均具有较好的拟合效果,其中EPDS-3A模型的拟合效果较好(比较拟合指数为1.000,近似均方根误差为0.001)。ROC分析显示EPDS焦虑分量表在检测状态焦虑和特质焦虑方面具有良好的测试准确性。对于EPDS-3A,状态焦虑的auc为0.832 (95% CI 0.735-0.930),最佳临界值≥3(敏感性79.2%,特异性79.7%);对于特质焦虑的auc为0.912 (95% CI 0.837-0.988),最佳临界值≥4(敏感性82.4%,特异性84.8%)。对于EPDS-4A,状态焦虑的auc为0.833 (95% CI 0.736-0.930),最佳临界值≥4(敏感性79.2%,特异性71.2%);特质焦虑的auc为0.935 (95% CI 0.867-1.000),最佳临界值≥5(敏感性88.2%,特异性87.9%)。结论:EPDS-3A和EPDS-4A对产后1个月的焦虑均具有良好的模型拟合和筛查准确性。将焦虑筛查纳入常规产后护理可改善产妇心理健康状况。建议未来的研究包括临床环境和更大的队列研究,以提高外部效度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Frontiers in Psychiatry
Frontiers in Psychiatry Medicine-Psychiatry and Mental Health
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
8.50%
发文量
2813
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Psychiatry publishes rigorously peer-reviewed research across a wide spectrum of translational, basic and clinical research. Field Chief Editor Stefan Borgwardt at the University of Basel is supported by an outstanding Editorial Board of international researchers. This multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide. The journal''s mission is to use translational approaches to improve therapeutic options for mental illness and consequently to improve patient treatment outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信