4.5 Article

Tocophobia in the DSM-5 era: Outcomes of a new cut-off analysis of the Wijma delivery expectancy/experience questionnaire based on clinical presentation

期刊

JOURNAL OF PSYCHOSOMATIC RESEARCH
卷 116, 期 -, 页码 37-43

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2018.11.012

关键词

Cesarean section; Fear of childbirth; Post-partum mood; Pregnancy; Psychopathology; Tocophobia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction and aims: Diagnosis of tocophobia using existing instruments is an area of active investigation. Although a range of Wijma Delivery Experience Questionnaire (W-DEQ) cut-off scores has been suggested for detecting tocophobia, there is no consensus among researchers about an optimal cut-off score. The primary goal of the present study was to identify a cut-off value while referring to the DSM-5 Specific Phobia criteria as a gold standard, and to accordingly evaluate how the fearful component of the childbirth experience and psychopathology in the post-natal period are affected by tocophobia. Methods: We conducted an observational, longitudinal study on nulliparous women (n = 106). Routine pregnancy data and data from psychometric questionnaires investigating depression, anxiety, and fear of childbirth were collected. A psychiatric Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 (SCID-5) was also conducted. The same parameters were re-evaluated one month after parturition. Results: A W-DEQ score of 85 was found to be the optimal cut-off score for detecting tocophobia, with sound sensitivity (100%) and specificity (93.8%). We found substantial agreement between the W-DEQ A and SCID-5 Specific Phobia Criteria (Cohen's Kappa coefficient, x = 0.720). Conclusions: A W-DEQ cut-off value of 85 is a reliable tool for detecting clinically relevant fear of childbirth according to the DSM-5 diagnosis of Specific Phobia. Therefore, accurate psychopathological investigation must be administered to women with W-DEQ scores greater than this cut-off score.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据