Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles
Peer Review Status: Refereed
Title: Assessment of perinatal anxiety: diagnostic accuracy of five measures
Author(s): Ayers, Susan
Coates, Rose
Sinesi, Andrea
Cheyne, Helen
Maxwell, Margaret
Best, Catherine
McNicol, Stacey
Williams, Louise R
Uddin, Nazihah
Hutton, Una
Howard, Grace
Shakespeare, Judy
Walker, James J
Alderdice, Fiona
Jomeen, Julie
Contact Email:
Keywords: Anxiety or fear-related disorders
perinatal psychiatry
rating scales
diagnostic accuracy
depressive disorders
Issue Date: 25-Jan-2024
Date Deposited: 27-Feb-2024
Citation: Ayers S, Coates R, Sinesi A, Cheyne H, Maxwell M, Best C, McNicol S, Williams LR, Uddin N, Hutton U, Howard G, Shakespeare J, Walker JJ, Alderdice F & Jomeen J (2024) Assessment of perinatal anxiety: diagnostic accuracy of five measures. <i>The British Journal of Psychiatry</i>.
Abstract: Background Anxiety in pregnancy and after giving birth (the perinatal period) is highly prevalent but under-recognised. Robust methods of assessing perinatal anxiety are essential for services to identify and treat women appropriately. Aims To determine which assessment measures are most psychometrically robust and effective at identifying women with perinatal anxiety (primary objective) and depression (secondary objective). Method We conducted a prospective longitudinal cohort study of 2243 women who completed five measures of anxiety and depression (Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD) two- and seven-item versions; Whooley questions; Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation (CORE-10); and Stirling Antenatal Anxiety Scale (SAAS)) during pregnancy (15 weeks, 22 weeks and 31 weeks) and after birth (6 weeks). To assess diagnostic accuracy a sample of 403 participants completed modules of the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). Results The best diagnostic accuracy for anxiety was shown by the CORE-10 and SAAS. The best diagnostic accuracy for depression was shown by the CORE-10, SAAS and Whooley questions, although the SAAS had lower specificity. The same cut-off scores for each measure were optimal for identifying anxiety or depression (SAAS ≥9; CORE-10 ≥9; Whooley ≥1). All measures were psychometrically robust, with good internal consistency, convergent validity and unidimensional factor structure. Conclusions This study identified robust and effective methods of assessing perinatal anxiety and depression. We recommend using the CORE-10 or SAAS to assess perinatal anxiety and the CORE-10 or Whooley questions to assess depression. The GAD-2 and GAD-7 did not perform as well as other measures and optimal cut-offs were lower than currently recommended.
DOI Link: 10.1192/bjp.2023.174
Rights: Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal College of Psychiatrists. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (, which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Notes: Additional authors: the MAP study Team
Licence URL(s):

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
assessment-of-perinatal-anxiety-diagnostic-accuracy-of-five-measures.pdfFulltext - Published Version359.49 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

This item is protected by original copyright

A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.