Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28135275›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

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

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

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Recommendations for Reporting Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug Screening Tool Use With Pregnant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Julia V MarleyThe Rural Clinical School of Western Australia, The University of Western Australia, Broome, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1014-4860
Jayne KotzSchool of Psychology and Exercise Science, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia.
Catherine EngelkeKimberley Aboriginal Medical Services Ltd, Broome, Western Australia, Australia.
Melissa WilliamsWestern Australian County Health Service, Broome, Western Australia, Australia.
Donna StephenKimberley Aboriginal Medical Services Ltd, Broome, Western Australia, Australia.
Sudha CoutinhoIndependent Consultant, Broome, Western Australia, Australia.
Stephanie K TrustKimberley Aboriginal Medical Services Ltd, Broome, Western Australia, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 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.

methodsAcross 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.

resultsPart 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.

conclusionKMMS 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.

Indexed as

AffectDelivery of Health CareMass ScreeningPatient Acceptance of Health CarePsychiatric Status Rating ScalesAdolescentAdultAnxietyDepression, PostpartumFemaleGeneral PractitionersHumansPregnancyReference StandardsReproducibility of ResultsRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID28135275
PMCPMC5279756

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.