Choosuk et al.
Prevalence and Factors Associated with Antepartum Depression: A University
Pavarisa Choosuk, M.D.*, Jarurin Pitanupong, M.D.*, Chitkasaem Suwanrath, M.D., M.Med.Sci.**
*Department of Psychiatry, **Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla, 90110, Thailand
ABSTRACT
Objective: This study aimed to assess the prevalence of and factors associated with antepartum depression among Thai women.
Materials and Methods: All pregnant women attending the Antenatal Care Clinic at Songklanagarind Hospital from June to August 2020 were invited to participate and evaluated through
Conclusion:
Keywords: Antepartum; associated factors; depression; pregnancy; prevalence (Siriraj Med J 2021; 73:
INTRODUCTION
Depression is a common psychiatric disorder.1,2 The World Health Organization (WHO) reported depression as the third cause of global burden of disease in 2004 and the second cause in 2020, and it estimates depression will be the leading cause of “lost years of healthy life” worldwide by 2030.1 Women are twice as likely to develop depression, especially during pregnancy, due to the physical, physiological, and hormonal changes they undergo.3
Antepartum depression is characterized by depressive symptoms like low mood or sadness, feeling of worthlessness, loss of interest or pleasure, sleep
disturbance, and changes in appetite4; it affects both the maternal health and family life of women.5 Moreover, it is often considered to be associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes such as preterm birth and low birth
Systematic reviews have estimated the overall prevalence of antepartum depression at around 6.2 - 9.2 % in
Corresponding author: Jarurin Pitanupong
Received 18 May 2021 Revised 19 August 2021 Accepted 19 August 2021 ORCID ID:
652 Volume 73, No.10: 2021 Siriraj Medical Journal |
depression can be categorized into four
Moreover, in regards to the social and family aspect, factors such as low socioeconomic status22, lack of partner support23 or poor marital relationship24, history of intimate partner violence11,12, differences in religion and/or culture between partners13, having a partner with a smoking and drinking habit15,18, difficult relationship with the
The risk factors associated with antepartum depression may differ among countries. Limited data concerning these issues are available from Asian countries. In Thailand, only one study on this topic has been conducted in the past ten years (2010). It reported a 10.3 % prevalence of antepartum depression, but it did not explore its associating risk factors.25 Therefore, we conducted this study to determine the prevalence of antepartum depression across gestational ages and identify its associating risk factors. This research may provide useful information for both psychiatrists and obstetricians in their efforts to establish antepartum depression screening programs aimed at the early detection, prevention, and timely management of severe depression among pregnant women.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
After approval by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University (REC:
Original Article SMJ
pregnant women who were able to complete all parts of the questionnaires. Those with a
All eligible pregnant women were asked to answer the
Measures
The data collection tools consisted of the demographic data questionnaire, the Rosenberg’s Self- esteem Scale, the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support
1)The demographic characteristics questionnaire consisted of questions enquiring about the woman’s age, gestational age, educational level, occupation, religion, healthcare coverage scheme, marital status, family income, pregnancy intention, gravidity, parity and abortion, obstetric complications, history of substance abuse, underlying medical illness, and family and partner profiles.
2)Rosenberg’s
3)The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support
Volume 73, No.10: 2021 Siriraj Medical Journal 653 |
Choosuk et al.
4)The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale
Statistical methods
Descriptive statistics, the
RESULTS
Demographic characteristics
A total of 447 pregnant women attended the Antenatal Care Clinic during the study period, and 435 of them (97.3 %) agreed to complete the questionnaires. Most women were in the third and second trimesters. Overall, the mean (SD) maternal age was 32.0 (5.2) years, and the mean (SD) gestational age was 23.8 (10.3) weeks. The majority of the participants were Buddhist
(69.0 %), had a high educational level (72.2 %), had a Bachelor’s degree or higher), were employees (36.3 %), and had a low monthly household income (66.9 %). Besides, most women were multigravida (65.3 %) and had planned their pregnancies (77.7 %). About one- fourth of them had experienced pregnancy complications such as gestational diabetes mellitus, fetal anomaly, and threatened abortion during the current pregnancy. However, the majority of participants had no underlying medical illnesses (85.7 %). Moreover, only 10 participants (2.3 %) had a family history of psychiatric illness such as major depressive disorder, persistent depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and schizophrenia.
Using the Rosenberg’s
Perceived social support
The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support
TABLE 1. EPDS,
|
|
Trimester; number (%) |
|
|
|||
Questionnaire measures |
Total |
First |
Second |
Third |
Chi2 |
||
(N = 435) |
trimester |
trimester |
trimester |
||||
|
|||||||
|
|
(n = 88) |
(n = 172) |
(n = 175) |
|
||
EPDSa |
|
|
|
|
|
0.095 |
|
< 11 |
389 (89.4) |
81 (92.0) |
147 (85.5) |
161 (92.0) |
|
||
≥ 11 |
46 (10.6) |
7 |
(8.0) |
25 (14.5) |
14 (8.0) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.293* |
||
Low |
6 (1.4) |
2 |
(2.3) |
1 (0.6) |
3 (1.7) |
|
|
Normal |
363 (83.4) |
77 (87.5) |
139 (80.8) |
147 (84.0) |
|
||
High |
66 (15.2) |
9 |
(10.2) |
32 (18.6) |
25 (14.3) |
|
|
MSPSSc |
|
|
|
|
|
0.530* |
|
Low |
2 (0.5) |
0 |
(0) |
0 (0) |
2 (1.1) |
|
|
Moderate |
109 (25.1) |
19 (21.6) |
47 (27.3) |
43 (24.6) |
|
||
High |
324 (74.5) |
69 (78.4) |
125 (72.7) |
130 (74.3) |
|
Note: aEPDS = the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale;
* Fisher's exact test
654 Volume 73, No.10: 2021 Siriraj Medical Journal |
Original Article SMJ
Prevalence of antepartum depression
Using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale
1.6%, 5.7 %, and 3.2 %, respectively. However, after
Factors associated with antepartum depression
To identify factors associated with antepartum depression, demographic characteristics,
With regard to the factors associated with antepartum depression, women in the second trimester faced a 2.7 times increased risk for antepartum depression compared to those in the first trimester. Likewise, compared to the pregnant women with a high income level, those who reported survival and
2.3times higher risk for antepartum depression than intended pregnancy. On the other hand, a normal level of
DISCUSSION
This study indicated that the prevalence of depression during the antepartum period assessed via EPDS was 10.6 %. Comparing the prevalence of our study with those reported by previous researches, it was similar to the one found by a study from Thailand (10.3 %) even if using the different tools.25 Thus, we
can conclude that for the screening of antepartum depression we can use both EPDS (our study) and
Regarding family income, compared to pregnant women with a high level of income, those with survival or
Similarly, unintended pregnancy was associated with twice the likelihood of antepartum depression compared to intended pregnancy. This finding was consistent with those of previous studies conducted in Jordan and Kenya.18,19 Unplanned pregnancies can lead to concerns about oneself, the family, and the baby’s future. Furthermore, unintended pregnancy was high in our study because of high ratio of Islamism in Southern Thailand that they cannot do any contraception according to the principles of their religious.
Conversely, normal
Volume 73, No.10: 2021 Siriraj Medical Journal 655 |
Choosuk et al.
TABLE 2. Demographic characteristics,
|
Total |
EPDSa; number (%) |
Chi2 |
||||
Variables |
< 11 |
≥ 11 |
|||||
(N = 435) |
|||||||
|
(n = 389) |
(n = 46) |
|||||
|
|
|
|
||||
Age (years) |
|
|
|
|
|
0.622 |
|
< 35 |
293 |
(67.4) |
264 |
(67.9) |
29 (63.0) |
|
|
≥ 35 |
142 |
(32.6) |
125 |
(32.1) |
17 (37.0) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trimester |
|
|
|
|
|
0.095 |
|
First |
88 (20.2) |
81 (20.8) |
7 (15.2) |
|
|||
Second |
172 |
(39.5) |
147 |
(37.8) |
25 (54.3) |
|
|
Third |
175 |
(40.2) |
161 |
(41.4) |
14 (30.4) |
|
|
Educational level |
|
|
|
|
|
0.197 |
|
Below Bachelor’s degree |
121 |
(27.8) |
104 |
(26.7) |
17 (37.0) |
|
|
Bachelor’s degree and higher |
314 |
(72.2) |
285 |
(73.3) |
29 (63.0) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Occupation |
|
|
|
|
|
0.159 |
|
199 |
(45.7) |
175 |
(45) |
24 (52.2) |
|
||
Government employee |
158 |
(36.3) |
147 |
(37.8) |
11 (23.9) |
|
|
Housewife/unemployed |
78 (17.9) |
67 (17.2) |
11 (23.9) |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Religion |
|
|
|
|
|
0.414* |
|
Buddhism |
300 |
(69) |
272 |
(69.9) |
28 (60.9) |
|
|
Islam |
132 |
(30.3) |
114 |
(29.3) |
18 (39.1) |
|
|
Christianity |
3 (0.7) |
3 (0.8) |
0 (0.0) |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Health coverage |
|
|
|
|
|
0.093 |
|
Civil Servant Medical Benefit Scheme (CSMBS) |
152 |
(34.9) |
140 |
(36) |
12 (26.1) |
|
|
Universal Coverage Scheme (UCS) |
45 (10.3) |
36 (9.3) |
9 (19.6) |
|
|||
Social Security Scheme (SSS) |
101 |
(23.2) |
88 (22.6) |
13 (28.3) |
|
||
137 |
(31.5) |
125 |
(32.1) |
12 (26.1) |
|
||
Marital status |
|
|
|
|
|
0.637* |
|
Single/divorced |
13 (3) |
11 (2.8) |
2 (4.3) |
|
|||
Married |
422 |
(97) |
378 |
(97.2) |
44 (95.7) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monthly household income (Baht/month) |
|
|
|
|
|
0.058 |
|
< 30,000; low income |
291 |
(66.9) |
254 |
(65.3) |
37 (80.4) |
|
|
≥ 30,000; high income |
144 |
(33.1) |
135 |
(34.7) |
9 (19.6) |
|
|
Standard of living |
|
|
|
|
|
< 0.001 |
|
High |
222 |
(51) |
211 |
(54.2) |
11 (23.9) |
|
|
Survival |
183 |
(42.1) |
156 |
(40.1) |
27 (58.7) |
|
|
Below survival |
30 (6.9) |
22 (5.7) |
8 (17.4) |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Family structure |
|
|
|
|
|
> 0.99 |
|
Nuclear |
306 |
(70.3) |
274 |
(70.4) |
32 (69.6) |
|
|
Extended |
129 |
(29.7) |
115 |
(29.6) |
14 (30.4) |
|
|
Pregnancy intention |
|
|
|
|
|
0.002 |
|
Unintended |
97 (22.3) |
78 (20.1) |
19 (41.3) |
|
|||
Intended |
338 |
(77.7) |
311 |
(79.9) |
27 (58.7) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parity |
|
|
|
|
|
0.878 |
|
Nulliparity |
151 |
(34.7) |
136 |
(35) |
15 (32.6) |
|
|
Multiparity |
284 |
(65.3) |
253 |
(65) |
31 (67.4) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
656 Volume 73, No.10: 2021 Siriraj Medical Journal |
Original Article SMJ
TABLE 2. Demographic characteristics,
|
Total |
EPDSa; number (%) |
|
Chi2 |
|||||
Variables |
< 11 |
≥ 11 |
|||||||
(N = 435) |
|||||||||
|
(n = 389) |
(n = 46) |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Complications during this pregnancy |
84 (19.3) |
70 (18) |
14 |
(30.4) |
0.068 |
||||
Number of children |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.568 |
|
0 - 1 |
173 |
(39.8) |
157 |
(40.4) |
16 |
(34.8) |
|
||
> 1 |
262 |
(60.2) |
232 |
(59.6) |
30 |
(65.2) |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Complications during previous pregnancies |
106 |
(24.4) |
91 (23.4) |
15 |
(32.6) |
0.232 |
|||
Previous miscarriage |
89 (20.5) |
76 (19.5) |
13 |
(28.3) |
0.233 |
||||
Smoking |
3 (0.7) |
2 (0.5) |
1 |
(2.2) |
0.285* |
||||
Alcohol consumption |
47 (10.8) |
41 (10.5) |
6 |
(13) |
0.615* |
||||
Underlying medical illness |
62 (14.3) |
54 (13.9) |
8 |
(17.4) |
0.674 |
||||
Family history of psychiatric illness |
10 (2.3) |
7 (1.8) |
3 |
(6.5) |
0.078* |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
< 0.001 |
||
Low |
6 (1.4) |
2 (0.5) |
4 |
(8.7) |
|
||||
Normal |
363 |
(83.4) |
321 |
(82.5) |
42 |
(91.3) |
|
||
High |
66 (15.2) |
66 (17) |
0 |
(0) |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MSPSSc |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.006 |
|
111 |
(25.5) |
91 (23.4) |
20 |
(43.5) |
|
||||
High |
324 |
(74.5) |
298 |
(76.6) |
26 |
(56.5) |
|
||
Partner’s demographic characteristics (n=432)** |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Educational level |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.166 |
|
Below Bachelor’s degree |
226 |
(52.3) |
197 |
(51) |
29 |
(63) |
|
||
Bachelor’s degree and higher |
206 |
(47.7) |
189 |
(49) |
17 |
(37) |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Occupation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.79 |
|
285 |
(66) |
253 |
(65.5) |
32 |
(69.6) |
|
|||
Government employee |
140 |
(32.4) |
127 |
(32.9) |
13 |
(28.3) |
|
||
7 (1.6) |
6 (1.6) |
1 |
(2.2) |
|
|||||
Religion |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.223* |
|
Buddhism |
300 |
(69.4) |
273 |
(70.7) |
27 |
(58.7) |
|
||
Islam |
130 |
(30.1) |
111 |
(28.8) |
19 |
(41.3) |
|
||
Christianity |
2 (0.5) |
2 (0.5) |
0 |
(0.0) |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Smoking |
191 |
(44.2) |
169 |
(43.8) |
22 |
(47.8) |
0.715 |
||
Alcohol consumption |
182 |
(42.1) |
163 |
(42.2) |
19 |
(41.3) |
> 0.99 |
||
Other substance abuse |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(E.g. Cannabis) |
3 (0.7) |
2 (0.5) |
1 |
(2.2) |
0.287* |
||||
Underlying medical illness |
27 (6.2) |
22 (5.7) |
5 |
(10.9) |
0.19* |
||||
Psychiatric illness |
1 (0.2) |
1 (0.3) |
0 |
(0.0) |
> 0.99* |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: aEPDS = the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale;
* Fisher's exact test; ** There were 3 missing values.
Volume 73, No.10: 2021 Siriraj Medical Journal 657 |
Choosuk et al.
TABLE 3. Factors associated with antepartum depression by multivariate regression analysis.
Factors |
Crude ORa |
Adjusted ORa |
||||
(95 % CIb) |
(95 % CIb) |
LRc test |
||||
|
||||||
Trimester |
|
|
|
|
0.018 |
|
First |
Refd |
|
Refd |
|
|
|
Second |
1.97 |
(0.82, 4.75) |
2.73 |
(1.04, 7.21) |
|
|
Third |
1.01 |
(0.39, 2.59) |
1.06 |
(0.38, 2.95) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standard of living |
|
|
|
|
0.001 |
|
High |
Refd |
|
Refd |
|
|
|
Survival |
3.32 |
(1.6, 6.9) |
3.23 |
(1.5, 6.96) |
|
|
Below survival |
6.98 |
(2.54, 19.17) |
5.35 |
(1.78, 16.03) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pregnancy intention |
|
|
|
|
0.021 |
|
Intended |
Refd |
|
Refd |
|
|
|
Unintended |
2.81 |
(1.48, 5.31) |
2.3 (1.15, 4.6) |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
< 0.001 |
||
Low* |
Refd |
|
Refd |
|
|
|
Normal |
0.07 |
(0.01, 0.37) |
0.06 |
(0.01, 0.39) |
|
|
High |
0 (0, inf.) |
0 (0, inf.) |
|
|||
|
|
|
||||
Note: aOR = odds ratio; bCI = confidence interval; |
cLR = |
|
*We could not use a normal
experience less stress or anxiety than those with a low level of
Finally, the information provided by our findings might prove useful in establishing a screening program that utilizes EPDS for pregnant women in the future, which can be applied from the first trimester of the antepartum period. The rationale of using the first trimester as a reference point was is based on evidence from a previous study, which demonstrated an increasing risk for antepartum depression with advancing gestational age.14 Such programs may be especially beneficial for women at risk for antepartum depression, e.g., those with unintended pregnancy, low family income, low
play a role in pregnancy care should design and conduct activities aimed at enhancing the
658 Volume 73, No.10: 2021 Siriraj Medical Journal |
Strengths and limitations
To our knowledge, this is the only study on this topic conducted in Thailand during the past decade, which employed an adequate sample size and covered pregnant women in all trimesters of pregnancy. Another strength of this study is that we identified factors associated with antepartum depression, which can be very useful in detecting pregnant women at risk for this significant health problem. However, our study suffered from some limitations. It utilized
Future recommendations and implications
For further study, screening from the first ANC visit until the postpartum period and conducting multi- centric research on this topic are necessary before making a definite guideline for screening depression during pregnancy.
CONCLUSION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge all the participants for their willingness to provide information and the nursing staff of the antenatal clinic for facilitating this study by providing space at the clinic and support to carry out the study. We would like to also acknowledge Associate Professor Hutcha Sriplung, and the research assistants; Nisan Werachattawan and Kruewan Jongborwanwiwat, for their assistance with the data analysis. Moreover, we genuinely appreciate the
Original Article SMJ
International Affairs Unit of the Faculty of Medicine for
This study was fully supported by the Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Thailand. The funders played no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Disclosure statement: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
REFERENCES
1.World Health Organization. let’s talk [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2019 Aug 5] Available from: https://www.who.int/mental_health/ management/ depression/en/.
2.Kittirattanapaiboon P, Tantirangsee N, Chutha W, Tanaree A, Kwansanit P, Assanangkornchai S, et al. Thai mental health survey working group 1bureau of mental health service administration, department of mental health. prevalence of mental disorders and mental health problems: results from Thai national mental health survey 2013. Bangkok: Bureau of Mental Health Service Administration, Department of Mental Health; 2016.
3.Sadock B, Sadock V, Ruiz P. Synopsis of psychiatry: behavioral
sciences/clinical psychiatry. 11th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2014.
4.Howard LM, Molyneaux E, Dennis CL, Rochat T, Stein A, Milgrom J.
5.Burt V, Hendrick V. Clinical manual of women’s mental health. Arlington (VA): American Psychiatric Publishing, 2005.
6.Grigoriadis S, VonderPorten E, Mamisashvili L, Tomlinson G, Dennis C, Koren G, et al. The impact of maternal depression during pregnancy on perinatal outcomes. J Clin Psychiatry
7.Straub H, Adams M, Kim J, Silver R. Antenatal depressive symptoms increase the likelihood of preterm birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol
8.Yonkers K, Wisner K, Stewart D, Oberlander T, Dell D, Stotland
N, et al. The management of depression during pregnancy: a report from the American psychiatric association and the American college of obstetricians and gynecologists. Gen Hosp Psychiatry
9.Carter D, Kostaras X. Psychiatric disorders in pregnancy. BC Med J
10.Kids C. Depression in pregnant women and mothers: how it affects you and your child - caring for kids [Internet]. Ottawa: Canadian Paediatric Society. 2019 [cited 2019 Sept 8]. Available from: https://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/handouts/depression_in_ pregnant_women_ and_mothers.
11.
12.Ogbo F, Eastwood J, Hendry A, Jalaludin B, Agho K, Barnett B,
Volume 73, No.10: 2021 Siriraj Medical Journal 659 |
Choosuk et al.
et al. Determinants of antenatal depression and postnatal depression in Australia. BMC Psychiatry 2018;18:49.
13.Woody CA, Ferrari AJ, Siskind DJ, Whiteford HA, Harris MG. A systemic review and
and incidence of perinatal depression. J Affect Discord 2017;219:
14.Okagbue H, Adamu P, Bishop S, Oguntunde P, Opanuga A, Akhmetshin E. Systematic review of prevalence of antepartum depression during the trimesters of pregnancy. Maced J Med Sci
15.Gebremichael G, Yihune M, Ajema D, Haftu D, Gedamu G. Perinatal depression and associated factors among mothers in southern Ethiopia: evidence from Arba Minch Zuria health and demographic surveillance site. Psychiatry J 2018;2018: 7930684.
16.Bitew T, Hanlon C, Kebede E, Honikman S, Fekadu A. Antenatal depressive symptoms and perinatal complications: a prospective study in rural Ethiopia. BMC Psychiatry 2017;17:301.
17.Hu Y, Wang Y, Wen S, Guo X, Xu L, Chen B, et al. Association between social and family support and antenatal depression: a
18.Mohammad K, Gamble J, Creedy D. Prevalence and factors associated with the development of antenatal and postnatal depression among Jordanian women. Midwifery 2011;27:e238- 45.
19.Ongeri L, Otieno P, Mbui J, Juma E, Mathai M. Antepartum risk factors for postpartum depression: a follow up study among urban women living in Nairobi, Kenya. J Preg Child Health 2016; 3:288.
20.Fransson E, Ortenstrand A, Hjelmstedt A. Antenatal depressive symptoms and preterm birth: a prospective study of a Swedish National sample. Birth
21.Milgrom J, Gemmill AW, Bilszta JL, Hayes B, Barnett B, Brooks J, et al. Antenatal risk factors for postnatal depression:
a large prospective study. J Affect Disord
22.Babu GR, Murthy GVS, Singh N, Nath A, Rathnaiah M, Saldanha N, et al. Sociodemographic and medical risk factors associated with antepartum depression. Front Public Health 2018;6:127.
23.Joshi D, Shrestha S, Shrestha N. Understanding the antepartum depressivesymptomsanditsriskfactorsamongthepregnantwomen visitingpublichealthfacilitiesofNepal.PLoSOne2019;14:e0214992.
24.Rwakarema M, Premji SS, Nyanza EC, Riziki P, Palacios- Derflingher L. Antenatal depression is associated with pregnancy- related anxiety, partner relation, and wealth in women in northern Tanzania: a
25. Sitdhiraksa N, Nandidarbha R, Limsrichareon K, Thitadilok W. The prevalence of major depressive disorder during pregnancy at the antenatal care clinic Siriraj hospital. J Psychiatr Assoc Thailand
26.Wongpakaran T, Wongpakaran N. Confirmatory factor analysis of Rosenberg
27.Rosenberg M. Society and the Adolescent
28.Wongpakaran T, Wongpakaran N, Ruktrakul R. Reliability and Validity of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social
Support (MSPSS): Thai Version. Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health
29.Zimet GD, Dahlem N, Zimet SG, Farley G. The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. J Pers Assess
30.Vacharaporn K, Pitanupong J, Samangsri N. Development of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale Thai version. J Ment Health Thai
31.HealthM.WhatisTheBestScreeningToolforAntenatalDepression.
Boston: The MGH Center for Women’s Mental Health [Internet].
2015[cited2016Sept9].Availablefrom:https://womensmentalhealth.
660 Volume 73, No.10: 2021 Siriraj Medical Journal |