Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35606733›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2022

Reliability and validity of depression anxiety stress scale (DASS)-21 in screening for common mental disorders among postpartum women in Malawi.

Ernest Moya, Leila M Larson, Robert C Stewart, Jane Fisher, Martin N Mwangi, Kamija S Phiri

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
16.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 85 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Ernest MoyaTraining and Research Unit of Excellence (TRUE), 1 Kufa Road, PO Box 30538, Chichiri, BT3, Blantyre, Malawi. moyaernest@gmail.com.
Leila M LarsonDepartment of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Caroline, 915 Green Street Columbia, SC 29208, USA.
Robert C StewartDivision of Psychiatry, University of Edinburgh, Kennedy Tower, Royal Edinburgh Hospital, Morningside Park, Edinburgh, UK.
Jane FisherGlobal and Women's Health Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Martin N MwangiTraining and Research Unit of Excellence (TRUE), 1 Kufa Road, PO Box 30538, Chichiri, BT3, Blantyre, Malawi.
Kamija S PhiriTraining and Research Unit of Excellence (TRUE), 1 Kufa Road, PO Box 30538, Chichiri, BT3, Blantyre, Malawi.
Museum of Malawi · MWKamuzu University of Health SciencesMonash University · AURoyal Edinburgh Hospital · GBUniversity of South Carolina · US

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/S035818/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundApproximately one in five women who have recently given birth suffer from common mental disorder (CMD), particularly depression and/or anxiety. Most available CMD screening tools in most low- and middle-income countries do not screen for more than one mental health problem. Having a screening tool that is free to use, short in assessment time, and used to screen for more than one CMD is appealing in a resource-constrained setting.

methodWe conducted a criterion validation study of the Chichewa translated and adapted DASS-21 instrument against gold standard diagnoses of depression and anxiety disorders using an independently administered Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID). We compared the performance of the DASS-depression subscale with the Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale (EPDS). Internal reliability was reported using both Cronbach's alpha and ordinal alpha. The DASS-21 and EPDS ability to discriminate cases from non-cases was assessed by receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. We selected cut-off points for DASS-21 and EPDS that maximise both sensitivity and specificity.

resultsOne hundred fifteen participants were administered all the measures. Approximately 11.3% and 14.8% had depression and anxiety diagnoses respectively using SCID. The overall Cronbach's alpha for the DASS-21 scale was 0.74. The DASS-21 subscales had Cronbach's alpha values of 0.66, 0.29 and 0.52 for depression (DASS-D), anxiety (DASS-A) and stress (DASS-S), respectively. The ordinal alpha for DASS-D, DASS-A and DASS-S subscales were 0.83, 0.74 and 0.87, respectively. The area under the ROC curve was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.61; 0.91) for DASS-D and 0.65 for DASS-A. At a cut-off point of one or more, the sensitivity and specificity for DASS-D were 69.2% and 75.5%, whilst DASS-A was 52.9% and 75.5%, respectively. Pearson correlation coefficient for the association between DASS-D and EPDS was r = 0.61, p < 0.001.

conclusionThe DASS-21 had good internal reliability (Cronbach's alpha), and its ordinal alpha demonstrated good internal reliability for all its sub-scales. Regarding the criterion validation, only the DASS-D and EPDS demonstrated a satisfactory ability to discriminate cases from non-cases. Our findings suggest that health practitioners can use DASS-D as an alternative tool in screening depression as it has fewer questions than EPDS.

Indexed as

Depression, PostpartumMental DisordersAnxietyDepressionFemaleHumansMalawiMass ScreeningPostpartum PeriodPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsAnxietyDASS-21DepressionInternal reliabilityMalawiPostpartumSensitivitySpecificityValidationWomen

Identifiers

PMID35606733
PMCPMC9128196
OpenAlexW4281392013

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.