4.2 Article

Symptoms of anxiety and depression in women with gestational trophoblastic disease compared to women who had a miscarriage: a cross-sectional study

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/0167482X.2023.2210747

关键词

Gestational trophoblastic disease; miscarriage; anxiety; abortion; depression

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed anxiety and depression symptoms in women with gestational trophoblastic disease (GTD) and women who had miscarried between March 2020 and February 2021. The results showed a high frequency of anxiety and depression symptoms in both groups three months after pregnancy loss, with lack of partner support and low education being significant risk factors for psychiatric morbidity.
This study was conducted between March 2020 and February 2021 to analyze anxiety and depression symptoms in 64 women with gestational trophoblastic disease (GTD) and 99 women who had miscarried. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was applied by telephone three months after pregnancy loss. Multivariate analysis was performed using hierarchical logistic regression to evaluate associations between variables. Probable anxiety (HADS-A >= 8) and depression (HADS-D >= 8) were found in 53.1% and 43.8% of the GTD group and 49.5% and 39.4% of the miscarriage group, with no difference between the groups. Severe symptoms of anxiety (HADS-A 15-21) and depression (HADS-D 15-21) were found, respectively, in 12.5% and 4.7% of the GTD group and in 9.1% and 4.0% of the miscarriage group, also with no difference between the groups. Lack of partner support proved a risk factor for anxiety and depression, while poor education increased the risk of depression symptoms 3.43-fold following pregnancy loss. In conclusion, three months after pregnancy loss the frequency of anxiety and depression symptoms was similarly high in both groups, with poor education and lack of partner support being significant risk factors for the subsequent development of psychiatric morbidity.

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

4.2
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