Validation of the <scp>culturally adapted</scp> Edinburgh postpartum depression scale among east Asian, southeast Asian and south Asian populations: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) is a widely used self-report instrument to screen for postpartum depression (PPD). Assessing the relevance of the EPDS as a screening tool for minority ethnic populations is pertinent for ensuring culturally appropriate care. This scoping review aimed to explore what is known about the cultural adaptations of the EPDS in antepartum and postpartum mothers and fathers in East Asian, Southeast Asian and South Asian populations, and to what extent these adaptations are able to accurately screen for postpartum depression symptoms among these cultural groups. The scoping review was guided by the PRISMA-ScR checklist. The search strategy included databases of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL and Grey literature. Included studies were primary articles published in English language peer-reviewed journals that investigated the validation or cultural adaptation of the EPDS in mothers who were pregnant and/or had recently given birth, or fathers who were new parents, and were limited to the following cultural groups, whether living locally or abroad in a foreign country: East Asian, Southeast Asian or South Asian populations. Thirty-six of 2469 studies met criteria for inclusion. Twenty-one of 36 studies utilizing a culturally validated EPDS demonstrated a cut-off score lower than the original recommended cut-off. Important themes identified included the Role of Culture, Somatization of PPD, Method of Interview, and contrasting performance compared to other scales used to assess depression and/or anxiety. Accessibility to translated and validated EPDS and mindfulness of ethnically relevant EPDS cut-off scores are critical when using this tool among minority ethnic populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.061 | 0.236 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".