Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40564549›Full record

ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Screening Hospitalized Pregnant Women and Their Male Partners for Possible Distress: A Comparison of the Clinical Usefulness of Two Screening Measures.

Anna Maria Della Vedova, Chiara Bani, Margherita Capretti, Silvia Lucariello, Rita Simonetti, Serena Pelamatti, Emanuela Beretta

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Anna Maria Della VedovaDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Sciences, University of Brescia, Viale Europa, 11, 25123 Brescia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3573-6451
Chiara BaniObstetric Psychology, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics Operational Unit 1, Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale degli Spedali Civili di Brescia, Piazzale Spedali Civili, 1, 25123 Brescia, Italy.
Margherita CaprettiObstetric Psychology, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics Operational Unit 1, Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale degli Spedali Civili di Brescia, Piazzale Spedali Civili, 1, 25123 Brescia, Italy.
Silvia LucarielloObstetric Psychology, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics Operational Unit 1, Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale degli Spedali Civili di Brescia, Piazzale Spedali Civili, 1, 25123 Brescia, Italy.
Rita SimonettiObstetric Psychology, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics Operational Unit 1, Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale degli Spedali Civili di Brescia, Piazzale Spedali Civili, 1, 25123 Brescia, Italy.
Serena PelamattiDepartment of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Brescia, Via Branze, 38, 25123 Brescia, Italy.ORCID 0009-0002-2475-9583
Emanuela BerettaObstetric Psychology, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics Operational Unit 1, Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale degli Spedali Civili di Brescia, Piazzale Spedali Civili, 1, 25123 Brescia, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pregnancy is a period of great complexity and potential psychological vulnerability which may increase in unfavorable conditions, such as hospitalization. Therefore, early identification of emotional, anxious, or depressive difficulties is important in terms of maternal and fetal well-being. International guidelines recommend the use of brief screening tools to identify perinatal women for further investigation, but which of the measures is optimal remains to be clarified. The objective of this study was to compare the Whooley depression questions used together with the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2 (GAD-2), versus the Matthey Generic Mood Questionnaire (MGMQ), to evaluate their concordance in screening results and their clinical usefulness in the hospital setting. Hospitalized pregnant women, numbering 228, and 55 male partners completed both questionnaires. The women's results showed high similar screen positive rates on both measures, but the screen positive concordance between the two instruments was low (around 50%). The Whooley/GAD-2 missed a significant percentage of women who, on the MGMQ, wished to talk with a professional, or who expressed moderate to high distress. The data from male partners were too few to be interpretable. Findings suggest that screening is important in hospitalized women, and clinicians should consider the respective merits and possible weaknesses of different screening tools.

Indexed as

anxietydepressionhospitalizationpregnancyriskscreening

Identifiers

PMID40564549
PMCPMC12189201

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.