IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0168969.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validity and Acceptability of Kimberley Mum’s Mood Scale to Screen for Perinatal Anxiety and Depression in Remote Aboriginal Health Care Settings

Author

Listed:
  • Julia V Marley
  • Jayne Kotz
  • Catherine Engelke
  • Melissa Williams
  • Donna Stephen
  • Sudha Coutinho
  • Stephanie K Trust

Abstract

Background: The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) is widely recommended for perinatal anxiety and depression screening. However, many Aboriginal women find EPDS language complex and confusing, and providers find using it with Aboriginal women challenging. The two part Kimberley Mum’s Mood Scale (KMMS) was developed to improve screening: Part 1 is a Kimberley version of EPDS; Part 2 is a psychosocial tool that enables contextualisation of Part 1 scores. We aimed to determine if KMMS is a valid and acceptable method of identifying Kimberley Aboriginal perinatal women at risk of anxiety or depressive disorders compared to a semi-structured clinical interview. Methods: Across 15 sites in the Kimberley, Western Australia, 97 Aboriginal women aged 16 years and older who intended to continue with their pregnancy or had a baby within the previous 12 months were administered the KMMS by trained healthcare providers who provided an overall assessment of no, low, moderate or high risk; 91 participants were then independently assessed by a blinded clinical expert using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition criteria. A qualitative approach was used to determine KMMS’ acceptability. Results: Part 1 had high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha, 0.89), and overall KMMS risk equivalence for screening for anxiety or depressive disorders was moderate (sensitivity, 83%; specificity, 87%; positive predictive value, 68%). Participants found the process easy and useful, and healthcare providers found KMMS more useful than EPDS. Part 2 allowed healthcare providers to ask questions that gave participants an opportunity to express themselves, resulting in a deeper understanding between them. Conclusion: KMMS is an effective tool for identifying Kimberley Aboriginal perinatal women at risk of anxiety and depressive disorders. Adoption of KMMS with culturally safe training and support is likely to improve screening processes, and with further validation may have broader applicability across remote Australia.

Suggested Citation

  • Julia V Marley & Jayne Kotz & Catherine Engelke & Melissa Williams & Donna Stephen & Sudha Coutinho & Stephanie K Trust, 2017. "Validity and Acceptability of Kimberley Mum’s Mood Scale to Screen for Perinatal Anxiety and Depression in Remote Aboriginal Health Care Settings," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0168969
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168969
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0168969
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0168969&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0168969?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0168969. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.