Psychometric properties of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 in male partners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) are common tools to measure depressive symptoms. The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the EPDS and PHQ-9 among male partners of pregnant women in Pakistan.METHODS: This longitudinal study included 206 primiparous male partners (mean age=30.4 years) of pregnant women with singleton pregnancies. During an antenatal visit at an outpatient clinic, study participants completed the EPDS and PHQ-9 questionnaires in the first or second trimester of pregnancy. Exploratory factor analysis was completed on data obtained from both tools.RESULTS: A three-factor structure best fit the EPDS (factors: depressive symptoms/suicide [items 7-10], anxiety symptoms [items 3-6], and anhedonia [items 1 and 2]) and a two-factor structure best fit the PHQ-9 (factors: depressive symptoms [items 1, 3, 7, 8, and 9] and somatic symptoms [items 2, 4, 5, and 6]). Reliability for the EPDS overall scale was α=0.80. Items related to depressive symptoms/suicide and anxiety symptoms also yielded acceptable reliability (α=0.78; α=0.72), whereas the reliability of the anhedonia subscale was lower (α=0.57). For the PHQ-9, the reliability of the overall scale (α=0.79) and its subscales depressive symptoms (α=0.79) and somatic symptoms (α=0.68) were acceptable.CONCLUSIONS: These tools are effective scales that can be used with partners in this specific cultural context.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".