4.2 Article

Validity of somatic symptoms as indicators of depression in pregnancy

期刊

ARCHIVES OF WOMENS MENTAL HEALTH
卷 16, 期 3, 页码 203-210

出版社

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00737-013-0334-2

关键词

Depression; Pregnancy; Somatic symptoms

资金

  1. NIMH [MH086150]
  2. Canadian Institutes for Health Research [MOP-93660]
  3. University of Iowa (Department of Psychology, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, and Office of the Vice President for Research)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Somatic symptoms (e.g., fatigue, appetite changes, and sleep disruption) are common to both pregnancy and depression. The goal of the present study was to examine the validity of somatic symptoms as indicators of depression during pregnancy. The Inventory of Depression and Anxiety Symptoms (IDAS) was administered to a cross-sectional sample of 255 pregnant women as well as 820 women from five community-based samples, who served as a control group. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to evaluate the fit of a single-factor model of depression in pregnant and community samples. Multigroup CFA was used to test the invariance of the factor loadings of eight depression-related symptom scales. The fit for a one-factor model was adequate for both the pregnant and community samples. All eight IDAS scales were valuable indicators of depression in the community group; however, Appetite Loss and Appetite Gain were poor indicators of depression among the pregnant women. The factor loadings for Lassitude and Appetite Gain were significantly weaker amongst the pregnant women than community women. The magnitude of the factor loadings for Insomnia and Well Being were significantly greater for the pregnant group. With the exception of appetite disturbance, somatic symptoms, though a common occurrence during pregnancy, are valid indicators of depression during pregnancy. When assessing for prenatal depression, somatic symptoms should not necessarily be dismissed as normative pregnancy experiences.

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