Making assessment locally relevant: measuring functioning for maternal depression in Khayelitsha, Cape Town
- 306 Downloads
We developed a locally relevant functioning assessment instrument (FAI) for pregnant women and mothers of young babies to complement a widely validated instrument—the World Health Organization’s Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 12-item version. The FAI is an outcome measure in a randomised controlled trial on the effectiveness of a lay counsellor administered intervention for distressed pregnant women in Khayelitsha, Cape Town.
Nine items most commonly reported by 40 pregnant women or mothers with young babies in qualitative interviews were selected for the instrument, with a 10th item ‘Other’. The FAI was validated with 142 pregnant women and mothers in Khayelitsha. Analysis was conducted to assess internal reliability, exploratory factor analysis and convergent validity.
The FAI had good internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.77) and the explanatory factor analysis showed a clear 3-factor solution, relating to domestic, childcare and social activities. The FAI scores showed floor effects, but were positively correlated with the two measures of functioning (WHODAS 2.0 and Washington Group Short Set). The FAI scores also correlated with the measure of depression (Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale—EPDS), reflecting increased functional limitations associated with increased depressive symptoms.
The results show that the FAI has good internal reliability, and good convergent and construct validity as a measure of functioning for this context. This paper reports on the process of developing an instrument and highlights the importance of using instruments that are locally relevant to ensure accurate measurement of functional status.
KeywordsFunctional assessment Maternal depression WHODAS 2.0 South Africa Instrument development Validity
The research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health of the National Institutes of Health under award number 5U19MH095699 and in part by the National Research Foundation of South Africa (NRF) (Grant Number 85042). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or NRF.
Conflict of interest
None of the authors have any conflict of interest.
This study was approved by the Faculty of Health Sciences Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Cape Town (REC Ref: 226/2011). All participants were required to sign consent before they were interviewed for the free listing and validation phases.
Clinical Trials (ClinicalTrials.gov): NCT01977326; Pan African Clinical Trials Registry (http://www.pactr.org): PACTR201403000676264.
- 2.Üstün TB, Kostanjsek N, Chatterji S, Rehm J (2010) Measuring health and disability manual for WHO disability assessment scheduleGoogle Scholar
- 4.Federici S, Meloni F (2010) International encyclopedia of rehabilitation WHODAS II : Disability self-evaluation in the ICF conceptual frame. Int Encycl, RehabilGoogle Scholar
- 5.Bolton P, Tang AM (2002) An alternative approach to cross-cultural function assessment, pp 537–543. doi: 10.1007/s00127-002-0580-5
- 6.WHO (2001) International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- 7.Langlieb A, Guico-Pabia C (2010) Beyond symptomatic improvement: assessing real-world outcomes in patients with major depressive disorder. Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry 12:e1–e14Google Scholar
- 11.Bender A (2011) Restoring function in MDD: Balancing Efficacy and Tolerability to optimally manage major depressive disorder. Can J Diagnosis 28:13–21Google Scholar
- 18.Rahman A, Malik A, Sikander S et al (2008) Cognitive behaviour therapy-based intervention by community health workers for mothers with depression and their infants in rural Pakistan: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet 372:902–909. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61400-2 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 31.Willis GB (2005) Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. SAGE, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
- 32.IBM Corp. (2012) IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 21.0Google Scholar
- 37.UNESCAP (2010) Results of the testing of the ESCAP/WG extended question set on disability. BangkokGoogle Scholar