Perinatal depression screening by health cadres in Indonesia: EPDS or Whooley?

IF 1.6 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Journal of Public Mental Health Pub Date : 2024-08-12 DOI:10.1108/jpmh-03-2024-0035
E. R. Surjaningrum, E. Riyanto, Junaidah Yusof, Husnual Mujahadah
{"title":"Perinatal depression screening by health cadres in Indonesia: EPDS or Whooley?","authors":"E. R. Surjaningrum, E. Riyanto, Junaidah Yusof, Husnual Mujahadah","doi":"10.1108/jpmh-03-2024-0035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis study aims to investigate the feasibility of health cadres in Indonesia to take perinatal depression screening in the community using Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) and Whooley.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThe field study involved 11 health cadres (community volunteers who assist in maternal and child health) who were trained to administrate EPDS and Whooley towards 36 pregnant and postpartum mothers in a low resource urban setting for a month. A comparison of scores from both tools, the number and type of mistakes made by the cadres, and cadres perception about the tools were combined to determine the most feasible tool for cadres in identifying depression symptoms.\n\n\nFindings\nThe results show both tools are comparable for screening depression symptoms in mothers; however, EPDS was better at differentiating the level of symptoms. Whooley, with two case-finding questions, is simpler for cadres, whereas the EPDS is more difficult to be computed by cadres. Cadres support the implementation of such a screening, as it provides a channel for mothers to express their negative feelings.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nThe findings indicate Whooley is sufficient for first-level screening in the community by cadres, whereas the EPDS should be used by qualified health-care workers for further evaluation at primary health clinics.\n\n\nPractical implications\nHealth cadres could potentially be trained to use standardized yet simple psychological tools. Involving trained health cadres in integrated maternal mental health services in primary health care in Surabaya, Indonesia is promising.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThe use of the EPDS and the Whooley questions has not been applied in Indonesia particularly among health cadres despite their long-lasting role in primary health-care system.\n","PeriodicalId":45601,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Mental Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Mental Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jpmh-03-2024-0035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to investigate the feasibility of health cadres in Indonesia to take perinatal depression screening in the community using Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) and Whooley. Design/methodology/approach The field study involved 11 health cadres (community volunteers who assist in maternal and child health) who were trained to administrate EPDS and Whooley towards 36 pregnant and postpartum mothers in a low resource urban setting for a month. A comparison of scores from both tools, the number and type of mistakes made by the cadres, and cadres perception about the tools were combined to determine the most feasible tool for cadres in identifying depression symptoms. Findings The results show both tools are comparable for screening depression symptoms in mothers; however, EPDS was better at differentiating the level of symptoms. Whooley, with two case-finding questions, is simpler for cadres, whereas the EPDS is more difficult to be computed by cadres. Cadres support the implementation of such a screening, as it provides a channel for mothers to express their negative feelings. Research limitations/implications The findings indicate Whooley is sufficient for first-level screening in the community by cadres, whereas the EPDS should be used by qualified health-care workers for further evaluation at primary health clinics. Practical implications Health cadres could potentially be trained to use standardized yet simple psychological tools. Involving trained health cadres in integrated maternal mental health services in primary health care in Surabaya, Indonesia is promising. Originality/value The use of the EPDS and the Whooley questions has not been applied in Indonesia particularly among health cadres despite their long-lasting role in primary health-care system.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
印度尼西亚卫生干部的围产期抑郁症筛查:EPDS 还是 Whooley?
本研究旨在调查印度尼西亚卫生干部在社区使用爱丁堡产后抑郁量表(EPDS)和Whouoley进行围产期抑郁筛查的可行性。设计/方法/途径本实地研究涉及11名卫生干部(协助母婴健康工作的社区志愿者),他们接受了为期一个月的培训,以便在资源匮乏的城市环境中对36名孕妇和产后母亲实施爱丁堡产后抑郁量表和Whouoley。结果表明,两种工具在筛查母亲抑郁症状方面具有可比性;但 EPDS 更善于区分症状的程度。Whooley 有两个病例调查问题,对干部来说更简单,而 EPDS 则更难由干部计算。研究局限性/意义研究结果表明,Whouoley 可以满足干部在社区进行一级筛查的需要,而 EPDS 则应由合格的医护人员在初级保健诊所进行进一步评估。在印尼泗水的初级医疗保健中,让经过培训的医疗保健干部参与孕产妇心理健康综合服务是很有前景的。原创性/价值尽管 EPDS 和 Whooley 问题在初级医疗保健系统中长期发挥作用,但在印尼,尤其是在医疗保健干部中还没有应用过。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Public Mental Health
Journal of Public Mental Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
32
期刊最新文献
Perinatal depression screening by health cadres in Indonesia: EPDS or Whooley? Perinatal depression screening by health cadres in Indonesia: EPDS or Whooley? A community center to mobilize public policies and human rights in mental health: “the door is always open” Editorial: International perspectives in public mental health Mental Health First Aid™ for Deaf communities: responses to a lack of national Deaf mental health service provision
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1