Abstract
To determine the psychometric properties of the Perinatal Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Questionnaire (PPQ) in Spanish. A cross-sectional study of 432 Spanish puerperal women was conducted, following ethical approval. The PPQ was administered online through midwives' associations across Spain. The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale was used to diagnose postnatal depression for examining criterion validity. Data were collected on sociodemographic, obstetric, and neonatal variables. An exploratory factorial analysis (EFA) was performed with convergence and criterion validation. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's α. The EFA identified three components that explained 63.3% of variance. The PPQ's convergence validation associated the risk of PTSD with variables including birth plan, type of birth, hospital length of stay, hospital readmission, admission of the newborn to care unit, skin-to-skin contact, maternal feeding at discharge, maternal perception of partner support, and respect shown by healthcare professionals during childbirth and puerperium. The area under the ROC curve for the risk of postnatal depression (criterion validity) was 0.86 (95% CI 0.82–0.91). Internal consistency with Cronbach's α value was 0.896. The PPQ used when screening for PTSD in postpartum Spanish women showed adequate psychometric properties.
Subject terms: Psychiatric disorders, Quality of life
Introduction
Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), described as the complex somatic, cognitive, affective, and behavioral effects of psychological trauma1, is a significant mental health concern for pregnant and postpartum women. PTSD can affect both the mother and the newborn2, and it is linked with other mental health issues3.
Several tools exist to screen PTSD and, to our knowledge, there is only one tool specific for the perinatal period. The Perinatal PTSD Questionnaire (PPQ) was initially designed by Hynan in 19984. It was composed of 14 items with dichotomous responses. When tested in american population it demonstrated good psychometric properties5. In 2006, Callahan et al. changed the dichotomous answers to a Likert scale and re-validated the questionnaire, giving guidance on a cut-off score for clinical6. This tool has been examined for its psychometric properties in many languages and cultures including English7, Korean8, Chinese9, and French (in its original dichotomous version)10. For a Spanish version, we searched PubMed using kewords, text terms and word variants for the concept ‘Spanish and validation and posttraumatic stress disorder”. There were 50 citation. We found articles describing use of PPQ in the Spanish setting11, 12, but there was not a single citation of a validation study in this population.
Spanish is one of the most commonly spoken languages worldwide13. In the USA in 2018, it was estimated that 13.5% (41.5 million people) of the population over five years of age speaks Spanish14. As no validation study of Spanish PPQ exists and Spanish is an international language, there is a need to examine the performance of Spanish PPQ. This background led us to conduct a study to validate PPQ in Spanish.
Methodology
An observational cross-sectional validation study was conducted using the modified PPQ questionnaire6 in the Spanish language with a sample of postpartum Spanish women who gave birth in Spain with the approval of the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of Universidad de Jaen (reference number TD-VCDEPP-2019/1417-N-19). All participants received written information on the study, including the fact that participation was entirely voluntary with anonymity guaranteed. Before starting the questionnaire, the women had to read an information sheet about the study and its objectives, and check a box in which they showed their consent to participate in the study: that is, they signed an ad hoc digital informed consent.
The study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was conducted in accordance with Strobe cross sectional guidelines.
Participants
The sample size was estimated in accordance with the criteria for carrying out a factor analysis. These criteria envisage 10 subjects for each item15, and therefore we needed a sample of at least 140 participants. This minimum sample size was exceeded. The exclusion criteria for participation in the study were refusal to participate, being less than 18 years of age, and longer than 6 months after childbirth.
Data collection
An online questionnaire was developed and distributed from November to December 2019 with the collaboration of Spanish midwives' associations. This questionnaire included items collecting sociodemographic and clinical variables, the PPQ and the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS).
The following sociodemographic and clinical data were recorded: maternal age, education level, whether or not the pregnancy was desired, live newborn, parity, induction of labor, using natural analgesia, using epidural analgesia, using general anesthesia, type of birth, episiotomy, perineal tear, skin to skin, admission of the newborn to a care unit, degree of partner support, feeling respected by healthcare staff, type of feeding after discharge, surgical intervention, and postnatal hospital readmission. Some of the variables were used to describe the population, and some used in convergence validity.
The second component of the survey consisted of a series of questionnaires. First was the modified PPQ (Appendix S1: Spanish version), a 14-item measure assessing post-traumatic symptoms related to the childbirth experience, including intrusiveness or re-experiencing, avoidance behaviors, and hyperarousal or numbing of responsiveness. The PPQ also contains one item pertaining to feelings of guilt. Response options were modified from the original dichotomous scale to a five-level Likert-type scale (scored 0 to 4). Mothers were instructed to provide responses that reflected their experience during the targeted time frame (1 to 18 months postpartum). The total possible score on the modified PPQ ranged from 0 to 56. In the current investigation, internal consistency was superior to previous investigations using the dichotomous scaling, with an α = 0.906.
The EPDS is a 10-items self-reported scale designed as a specific instrument to detect postnatal depression and has been validated in the Spanish population during pregnancy16 and postnatally17. With a cut-off point of ≥ 10, the sensitivity was 79% and specificity 95.5%. The positive predictive value was 63.2% and negative predictive value 97.7%17. Moreover, it is a simple and widely accepted tool by clinical practitioners18. The EPDS was included to establish the criteria validity.
Data analysis
For sociodemographic and clinical data, the absolute and relative frequencies were used to describe the qualitative variables, and the mean and standard deviation (SD) used to describe the quantitative variables.
First, to determine the validity of the scale used, we analyzed three of the most common validity types: construct validity, convergent validity, and criterion validity.
For construct validity, we opted to carry out an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to determine the underlying factors through a principal component analysis (PCA). Before carrying out the EFA, we analyzed the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) tests and Bartlett's sphericity tests, to determine whether it was appropriate to apply this analysis. For this to be the case, the KMO should be above 0.6 and as close as possible to 1, and Bartlett's sphericity, which consists of statistical hypothesis testing, should be less than 0.05 to reject the null hypothesis of sphericity and ensure that the factor model is adequate to explain the data. In the EFA, we used Varimax rotation to help clarify the assignation of items to different factors. To determine the number of factors to retain, we used the Kaiser criterion, which is one of the most used criteria. It retains factors with eigenvalues greater than the unit value19.
Within the construct validity, we also analyzed convergent validity, in order to establish the relationship between the PPQ and factors which are believed to be associated with PTSD risk, such as type of birth, admission of the newborn to an intensive care unit (NICU), type of feeding, hospital length of stay, among others. Hence, a bivariate analysis was performed using Pearson's chi-squared or Fisher's t-student tests, depending on whether the variable data were qualitative or quantitative. The results were considered statistically significant when p < 0.05.
To study criteria validity, the Edinburgh scale was exerted with a ≥ 10 cut-off point. To do this, we carried out a sensitivity and specificity study with an analysis of the area under the received operating characteristic curve (AUC) obtained using Swets' criteria20. We also carried out a bivariate analysis between the scores obtained on the PPQ scale and the Edinburgh scale. We again used non-parametrical statistical tests and considered significant associations with p < 0.05.
The reliability analysis was done by studying the Cronbach's (α) to evaluate the internal consistency (IC). The IC indicates to what extent the items in the questionnaire are correlated with each other, and how they fit together and measure the same concept. The α is one of the most widely used measures to assess the reliability of a scale21. Its values range from 0 to 1. One of the most accepted rules is to consider α > 0.9 as excellent, α > 0.8 as good, α > 0.7 as acceptable, α > 0.6 as questionable, α > 0.5 as poor, and α < 0.5 as unacceptable22.
Version 24.0 of the SPSS statistics package was used for analyses.
Ethical approval
This study was approved by the the approval of the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of Universidad de Jaen (reference number TD-VCDEPP-2019/1417-N-19). Before starting the questionnaire, the participants read a fact sheet about the study, its objectives, etc., and marked a box by which they showed their consent to participate in it, i.e., they signed an online informed consent (ticking the option if they wanted to participate or not doing so when refusing to take part in the study). We followed the protocols established to carry out this type of research with the purpose of publication/disclosure to the scientific community. The study was conducted according to the strobe guidelines set in the Declaration of Helsinki and all procedures involving human subjects were approved by the Ethics Committee. All women involved in this study filled out informed consent and data treatment forms to enter the study, in accordance with the ethical standards of the Ethics Committee. All participants received written information on the study, including the fact that participation was entirely voluntary with anonymity guaranteed.
Results
Characteristics of participants
Four hundred thirty-two women agreed to participate in the study and completed the PPQ with a PTSD risk (score ≥ 19) of 11.1% (48). The mean age was 35.4 years (SD = 4.22), and 65.0% (281) were primiparous. Labor was induced in 38.7%, 57.6% (259) had a normal vaginal delivery, and 72.9% (315) needed regional analgesia. Neonatal data showed that 7.9% (34) were admitted to NICU, and 78.0% (337) were exclusively breastfed at the moment of hospital discharge. The remaining descriptive data are detailed in Table 1.
Table 1.
Characteristics of the sample included in a validation study of the PPQ Spanish questionnaire for PTSD risk.
| Variable | Total | PTSD Risk | |
|---|---|---|---|
| N (%) | Score < 19 | Score ≥ 19 | |
| Maternal age | |||
| Mean (SD) | 35.4 (4.22) | 5.3 (4.23) | 35.8 (4.14) |
| Academic Level | |||
| Primary school | 5 (1.2) | 5 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Secondary school | 28 (6.5) | 24 (85.7) | 4 (14.3) |
| High School | 102 (23.6) | 94 (92.2) | 8 (7.8) |
| University | 297 (68.8) | 261 (87.9) | 36 (12.1) |
| Intended pregnancy | |||
| No | 30 (6.9) | 27 (90.0) | 3 (10.0) |
| Yes | 402 (93.1) | 357 (88.8) | 45 (11.2) |
| Number of antenatal education sessions | |||
| No | 96 (22.2) | 83 (86.5) | 13 (13.5) |
| Less than 5 classes | 72 (16.7) | 61 (84.7) | 11 (15.3) |
| At least 5 classes | 264 (61.1) | 240 (90.9) | 24 (9.1) |
| Birth plan | |||
| No | 227 (52.5) | 205 (90.3) | 22 (9.7) |
| Yes, not respected | 37 (8.6) | 26 (70.3) | 11 (29.7) |
| Yes, and respected | 168 (38.9) | 153 (91.1) | 15 (8.9) |
| Twin pregnancy | |||
| No | 423 (97.9) | 376 (88.9) | 147 (11.1) |
| Yes | 9 (2.1) | 8 (88.9) | 1 (11.1) |
| Gestational age | |||
| Term | 406 (94.0) | 364 (89.7) | 42 (10.3) |
| Preterm (32–37 w) | 21 (4.9) | 18 (85.7) | 3 (14.3) |
| Very preterm (28–32 w) | 2 (0.5) | 1 (50.0) | 1 (50.0) |
| Extreme preterm (< 28 s) | 3 (0.7) | 1 (33.3) | 2 (66.7) |
| Live newborn | |||
| No | 2 (0.5) | 1 (50.0) | 1 (50.0) |
| Yes | 432 (99.5) | 383 (89.1) | 47 (110.9) |
| Parity | |||
| Primiparous | 281 (65.0) | 246 (87.5) | 35 (12.5) |
| Multiparous | 151 (35.0) | 138 (91.4) | 13 (8.6) |
| Induction of labor | |||
| No | 265 (61.3) | 241 (90.9) | 24 (1) |
| Yes | 167 (38.7) | 143 (85.6) | 24 (14.4) |
| Natural analgesia | |||
| No | 349 (80.8) | 307 (88.0) | 42 (12.0) |
| Yes | 83 (19.2) | 77 (92.8) | 6 (7.2) |
| Regional analgesia | |||
| No | 117 (27.1) | 104 (88.9) | 13 (11.1) |
| Yes | 315 (72.9) | 280 (88.9) | 35 (11.1) |
| General anesthesia | |||
| No | 421 (97.5) | 376 (89.3) | 45 (10.7) |
| Yes | 11 (2.5) | 8 (72.7) | 3 (27.3) |
| Type of birth | |||
| Normal birth | 249 (57.6) | 232 (93.8) | 17 (6.8) |
| Instrumental | 91 (21.1) | 81 (89.0) | 10 (11.0) |
| Elective CS | 27 (6.3) | 24 (88.9) | 3 (11.1) |
| Emergency CS | 65 (15.0) | 47 (72.3) | 18 (27.7) |
| Episiotomy | |||
| No | 308 (71.3) | 270 (87.7) | 38 (12.3) |
| Yes | 124 (28.3) | 114 (91.9) | 10 (8.1) |
| Perineal Tear | |||
| No | 258 (59.7) | 224 (86.8) | 34 (13.2) |
| Minor | 160 (37.0) | 104 (93.1) | 11 (6.9) |
| Severe | 14 (3.2) | 11 (78.6) | 3 (6.9) |
| Skin to skin | |||
| No | 94 (21.8) | 72 (76.6) | 22 (23.4) |
| Yes | 338 (78.2) | 312 (92.3) | 26 (7.7) |
| Neonatal Admission | |||
| No | 372 (86.1) | 342 (91.9) | 30 (8.1) |
| Intermediate care unit | 26 (6.0) | 16 (61.5) | 10 (38.5) |
| NICU | 34 (7.9) | 26 (7.5) | 8 (23.5) |
| Hospital length of stay | |||
| 1 day | 31 (7.2) | 28 (90.3) | 3 (9.7) |
| 2 day | 215 (49.8) | 203 (94.4) | 12 (5.6) |
| 3 day | 120 (27.8) | 104 (86.7) | 16 (13.3) |
| 4 days or more | 66 (15.3) | 49 (74.2) | 17 (25.8) |
| Partner Support | |||
| None | 9 (2.1) | 4 (44.4) | 5 (55.6) |
| Little | 15 (3.5) | 10 (66.7) | 5 (33.3) |
| Some | 32 (7.4) | 26 (81.3) | 6 (18.8) |
| Quite | 94 (21.8) | 84 (81.3) | 10 (10.6) |
| A lot | 282 (65.3) | 260 (92.2) | 22 (7.8) |
| Feeling respected by healthcare staff | |||
| None | 19 (4.4) | 7 (36.8) | 12 (63.2) |
| Little | 24 (5.6) | 15 (62.5) | 9 (37.5) |
| Some | 66 (15.3) | 58 (87.9) | 8 (12.1) |
| Quite | 153 (35.4) | 137 (89.5) | 16 (10.5) |
| A lot | 170 (39.4) | 167 (88.2) | 3 (1.8) |
| Feeding at discharge | |||
| Maternal | 337 (78.0) | 309 (91.7) | 28 (8.3) |
| Mixed | 79 (18.3) | 63 (79.7) | 16 (20.3) |
| Artificial | 16 (3.7) | 12 (75.0) | 4 (25.0) |
| Postnatal surgical intervention | |||
| No | 415 (96.1) | 374 (90.1) | 41 (9.9) |
| Yes | 17 (3.9) | 10 (58.8) | 7 (41.2) |
| Hospital readmission | |||
| No | 417 (96.5) | 371 (89.0) | 46 (11.0) |
| Yes | 15 (3.5) | 13 (86.7) | 2 (13.3) |
CS, Cesarean section; NICU, Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.
Psychometric properties
Factor construct validity
The KMO test gave a value of 0.902, and Bartlett's sphericity test was < 0.01. Therefore, we proceeded to carry out the EFA. Three components explained 63.3% of the variance. The first component, "Arousal," consisted of items 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 and accounted for 43.0% of variance. The second component, "Avoidance," consisted of items 2, 4, 5, 6, and 14 explained 13.8% of variance, while the third component "Intrusion" was formed by two items, 1 and 3, accounted for 6.3% of total variance. Furthermore, all the anti-image diagonal correlations showed figures higher than 0.86. Table 2 presents the scale items together with their respective factor weights.
Table 2.
Rotated component matrix.
| Item | Components | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Arousal |
2 Avoidance |
3 Intrusion |
|
| Q1 | 0.188 | 0.184 | 0.822 |
| Q2 | 0.162 | 0.706 | 0.341 |
| Q3 | 0.087 | 0.331 | 0.704 |
| Q4 | 0.218 | 0.768 | 0.234 |
| Q5 | 0.163 | 0.830 | 0.084 |
| Q6 | 0.142 | 0.681 | 0.121 |
| Q7 | 0.764 | 0.122 | 0.139 |
| Q8 | 0.797 | 0.206 | 0.152 |
| Q9 | 0.735 | 0.283 | 0.003 |
| Q10 | 0.721 | 0.097 | 0.226 |
| Q11 | 0.831 | 0.38 | -0.031 |
| Q12 | 0.660 | 0.182 | 0.284 |
| Q13 | 0.779 | 0.179 | 0.034 |
| Q14 | 0.486 | 0.531 | 0.107 |
| Distribution of the components according to validation version | |||
| Spanish | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 | 2, 4, 5, 6, 14 | 1, 3 |
| English | 7, 8, 10, 12 | 2, 4, 5, 14 | 1, 3, 13 |
| Korean | 7,8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, | 4, 5, 6 | 1, 2, 3, 14 |
| Chinese | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 | 4, 5, 14 | 1, 2, 3 |
Convergent validity
Next, the convergent validity was analyzed using bivariate analysis of the scores from the PPQ questionnaire and various sociodemographic and clinical factors. A statistically significant relationship was observed between PTSD risk with the following variables: Birth plan, type of birth, hospital length of stay, hospital readmission, skin to skin, admission of the newborn to NICU, degree of partner support, feeling respected by healthcare staff, and type of feeding on discharge.
Criterion validity
Using the EPDS as a comparative instrument, it was found that the PPQ, translated and transculturally adapted into Spanish, presented an AUC of 0.86 (95% CI 0.82–0.91), with a good capacity to classify the subjects according to Swets' criteria. The ROC curve can be seen in Fig. 1. The bivariate analysis between the scores of the PPQ and Edinburgh scales shows a significant positive relationship (r = 0.69, p < 0.001).
Figure 1.
ROC curve. Predictive capacity of the score in the PPQ for PD risk using the Edinburgh questionnaire.
Internal consistency
To evaluate internal consistency, the α of the total of the questionnaire was used, as well as that of each of the dimensions found with the EFA. For the total scale, α was 0.896. All the alfa values scored higher than 0.880 when removing an item, and the general α did not increase by more than 0.01; therefore, we decided to keep them. The α values for each factor are shown in Table 3.
Table 3.
Internal consistency of the PPQ.
| Variable | Cronbach's alpha (α) |
|---|---|
| Total | 0.896 |
| When removing the item: | |
| (1) Did you have bad dreams of giving birth or of your baby's hospital stay? | 0.894 |
| (2) Did you have upsetting memories of giving birth or of your baby's hospital stay? | 0.891 |
| (3) Did you have any sudden feelings as though your baby's birth was happening again? | 0.895 |
| (4) Did you try to avoid thinking about childbirth or your baby's hospital stay? | 0.889 |
| (5) Did you avoid doing things that might bring up feelings you had about childbirth or your baby's hospital stay (e.g., not watching a TV show about babies)? | 0.892 |
| (6) Were you unable to remember parts of your baby's hospital stay? | 0.894 |
| (7) Did you lose interest in doing things you usually do (e.g., did you lose interest in your work or family)? | 0.886 |
| (8) Did you feel alone and removed from other people (e.g., did you feel like no one understood you)? | 0.881 |
| (9) Did it become more difficult for you to feel tenderness or love with others? | 0.885 |
| (10) Did you have unusual difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep? | 0.887 |
| (11) Were you more irritable or angry with others than usual? | 0.885 |
| (12) Did you have greater difficulties concentrating than before you gave birth? | 0.886 |
| (13) Did you feel more jumpy (e.g., did you feel more sensitive to noise, or more easily startled)? | 0.885 |
| (14) Did you feel more guilt about the childbirth than you felt you should have felt? | 0.886 |
Discussion
Our analyses demonstrate the internal consistency, and construct and criterion validity of the Spanish PPQ. This allows for confidence in the use of the PPQ tool in a Spanish setting, something that had not been asured prior to our study.
Another important aspect to consider is the detected prevalence of PTSD risk, which stood at 11.1% in our sample. Apparently, it can be high, however, the Prevalence of PTSD is variable depending on the established cut-off point and the study population type. In 2017, a systematic review and meta-analysis of PTSD reported prevalence rates of 4.0% (95% CI 2.77–5.71) in the general population, with 18.5% (95% CI 10.6–30.38) of women at risk23. In addition, it should be clarified that the PPQ tool has a screening and not a diagnostic purpose, therefore it is normal that it presents a higher prevalence than the diagnosed cases.
With regard to factor construct validity the values obtained in KMO tests and Bartlett's sphericity test were adequate; thus, we conducted the EFA. Three components accounted for 63.3% of variance. The English, Korean, and Chinese versions explained 65%, 67%, and 51%, respectively, of variance7–9. Regarding components distribution, none of them match among the published versions, as can be seen in Table 2. Moreover, the Korean, Chinese, and Spanish versions coincide in the first component items.
The questionnaire presents an adequate convergent validity as is associated with variables linked previously with PTSD risk, such as type of birth11, 12, 23–30, prematurity5, 31, neonatal admission to care unit25, skin-to-skin11, and type of feeding23. Furthermore, other associations with PTSD risk were observed, including the degree of partner support and feeling respected by healthcare staff. We also used the same cut-off point (≥ 19) used by Callahan et al.6 to consider the risk of PTSD, being the same as that considered by the authors for clinical application; thus bringing the validation closer to its true clinical setting application.
The criterion validity was then evaluated using the EPDS. I opted for this tool because other authors have observed a strong correlation between PTSD and postpartum depression (33), it is a very well-known instrument used by professionals in clinical practice18. Specifically, we used EPD scores of ≥ 10 for determining the predictive capacity, finding almost excellent ROC AUC values.
Finally, internal consistency was evaluated and we found values very close to those found in the English version (Cronbach's α = 0.90)7 and for the Korean version (Cronbach's α = 0.91)8. The lowest internal consistency values were found in the Chinese version (Cronbach's α = 0.837)9, and especially in the French version (Cronbach's α = 0.77)10. This large difference could be explained because all the versions except the French used Likert-type scale while the French version used dichotomous responses.
With the validation of this questionnaire, practitioners can count on a new tool to identify those women who are at risk of developing PTSD after delivery. The tool is simple and easy to apply, in such a way that it could be included as another assessment tool during the postpartum period, just as the EPDS is used almost systematically for PD screening18. Health professionals with this type of tool can direct efforts towards the early detection and prevention of the consequences of a prevalent problem with an increasing trend and that has important consequences for the health of women and their offspring32, 33.
The validation of this instrument has a special relevance in the field of PTSD research, since to date there is no specific instrument for assessing the risk of perinatal PTSD in the Spanish-speaking population. Validations, as recommended by scientific societies34, they are essential so that researchers can use the assessment instruments in future research and can obtain valid results, establish comparisons, and measure the impact on women's health.
The strengths of our study include the opportunity to evaluate the Spanish PPQ across a diverse sample of a sociodemographically and clinically varied group of puerperal women. We had ample sample size for our evaluation with precisions. We also decided to only include women who had given birth 6 months ago to reduce memory bias as much as possible. There are various limitations of our study. Once the women who declined to take part in the study had been considered, there was no reason to believe there had been any selection bias as the number of non-participants was small, and the sample was consecutively selected. Regarding information bias, using an online questionnaire to collect data could be a limitation due to the lack of access that some women may experience, however, Callahan et al. already used this system for validation previously6.
Conclusions
In conclusion, the validation of the Spanihs PTSD Questionnaire, PPQ in postpartum Spanish women, showed adequate psychometric characteristics, which makes it appropriate for clinical practice in Spanish setting.
Supplementary Information
Acknowledgements
Professor Khan is Distinguished Investigator at University of Granada funded by the Beatriz Galindo (senior modality) program of the Spanish Ministry of Education.
Author contributions
A.H.-M.: Visualizaton, Conceptualization, Methodology, Software. S.M.-V.: Investigation, Reviewing. J.R.-A.: Data curation, Writing- Original draft preparation, Reviewing and Editing, Supervision. K.S.K.: Visualization, Investigation. M.D.-R.: Visualization, Investigation. J.M.M.-G.: Supervision, Writing- Reviewing and Editing.
Data availability
The data sets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author o reasonable request.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-021-85144-2.
References
- 1.van der Kolk BA, Pelcovitz D, Roth S, Mandel FS, McFarlane A, Herman JL. Dissociation, somatization, and affect dysregulation: The complexity of adaptation of trauma. Am. J. Psychiatry. 1996;153(7 Suppl):83–93. doi: 10.1176/ajp.153.7.83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Cook N, Ayers S, Horsch A. Maternal posttraumatic stress disorder during the perinatal period and child outcomes: A systematic review. J. Affect. Disord. 2018;225:18–31. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2017.07.045. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Yildiz PD, Ayers S, Phillips L. Factors associated with post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) 4–6 weeks and 6 months after birth: A longitudinal population-based study. J. Affect. Disord. 2017;221:238–245. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2017.06.049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Hynan M. The perinatal posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) questionnaire (PPQ) In: Zalaquett C, Wood R, editors. Evaluating Stress: A Book of Resources. Lanham: Scarecrow Press Scarecrow Press; 1998. pp. 199–200. [Google Scholar]
- 5.DeMier RL, Hynan MT, Harris HB, Manniello RL. Perinatal stressors as predictors of symptoms of posttraumatic stress in mothers of infants at high risk. J. Perinatol. 1996;16(4):276–280. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Callahan JL, Borja SE, Hynan MT. Modification of the Perinatal PTSD Questionnaire to enhance clinical utility. J. Perinatol. 2006;26(9):533–539. doi: 10.1038/sj.jp.7211562. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Quinnell FA, Hynae MT. Convergent and discriminant validity of the perinatal PTSD questionnaire (PPQ): A preliminary study. J. Trauma Stress. 1999;12(1):193–199. doi: 10.1023/A:1024714903950. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Park YK, Ju HO, Na H. Reliability and validity of the Korean version of the perinatal post-traumatic stress disorder questionnaire. J. Korean Acad. Nurs. 2016;46(1):29–38. doi: 10.4040/jkan.2016.46.1.29. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Zhang D, Zhang J, Gan Q, et al. Validating the Psychometric Characteristics of the Perinatal Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Questionnaire (PPQ) in a Chinese Context. Arch. Psychiatr. Nurs. 2018;32(1):57–61. doi: 10.1016/j.apnu.2017.09.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Pierrehumbert B, Borghini A, Forcada-Guex M, Jaunin L, Müller-Nix C, Ansermet F. Validation française d’un questionnaire de stress post-traumatique destiné aux parents d’enfants présentant un risque périnatal élevé. Ann. Med. Psychol. (Paris) 2004;162(9):711–721. doi: 10.1016/j.amp.2003.10.017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Hernández-Martínez A, Rodríguez-Almagro J, Molina-Alarcón M, Infante-Torres N, Donate Manzanares M, Martínez-Galiano JM. Postpartum post-traumatic stress disorder: Associated perinatal factors and quality of life. J. Affect. Disord. 2019;249:143–150. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2019.01.042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Hernández-Martínez A, Rodríguez-Almagro J, Molina-Alarcón M, Infante-Torres N, Rubio-Álvarez A, Martínez-Galiano JM. Perinatal factors related to post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms 1–5 years following birth. Women Birth. 2020;33(2):e129–e135. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2019.03.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Instituto Cervantes. La lengua española en el mundo, en datos y gráficos. https://www.epdata.es/datos/lengua-espanola-mundo-datos-graficos/513. Published 2020.
- 14.Characteristics of People by Laguage Spoken at Home.; 2018. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=spanish.language&hidePreview=true&tid=ACSST1Y2018.S1603&vintage=2018&layer=VT_2018_040_00_PY_D1&cid=S1601_C01_001E&y=2018.
- 15.De Vet HCW, Adèr HJ, Terwee CB, Pouwer F. Are factor analytical techniques used appropriately in the validation of health status questionnaires? A systematic review on the quality of factor analysis of the SF-36. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(5):1203–1218. doi: 10.1007/s11136-004-5742-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Vázquez MB, Míguez MC. Validation of the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale as a screening tool for depression in Spanish pregnant women. J. Affect. Disord. 2019;246:515–521. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2018.12.075. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Garcia-Esteve L, Ascaso C, Ojuel J, Navarro P. Validation of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) in Spanish mothers. J. Affect. Disord. 2003;75(1):71–76. doi: 10.1016/S0165-0327(02)00020-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.El-Den S, O’Reilly CL, Chen TF. A systematic review on the acceptability of perinatal depression screening. J. Affect. Disord. 2015;188:284–303. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2015.06.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Tabachnick B, Fidell L. Using Multivariate Statistics. 6. London: Pearson Education Limited; 2013. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Swets JA. Form of empirical ROCs in discrimination and diagnostic tasks: Implications for theory and measurement of performance. Psychol. Bull. 1986;99(2):181–198. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.99.2.181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Streiner D, Norman G, Cairney J. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Development and Usetle. 5. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015. [Google Scholar]
- 22.George D, Mallery P. SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference 18.0 Update. 11. Boston: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson; 2011. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Halperin O, Sarid O, Cwikel J. The influence of childbirth experiences on women׳s postpartum traumatic stress symptoms: A comparison between Israeli Jewish and Arab women. Midwifery. 2015;31(6):625–632. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2015.02.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Söderquist J, Wijma K, Wijma B. Traumatic stress after childbirth: the role of obstetric variables. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol. 2002;23(1):31–9. doi: 10.3109/01674820209093413. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Adewuya AO, Ologun YA, Ibigbami OS. Post-traumatic stress disorder after childbirth in Nigerian women: Prevalence and risk factors. BJOG. 2006;113(3):284–288. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00861.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Ayers S, Harris R, Sawyer A, Parfitt Y, Ford E. Posttraumatic stress disorder after childbirth: Analysis of symptom presentation and sampling. J. Affect. Disord. 2009;119(1–3):200–204. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2009.02.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Andersen LB, Melvaer LB, Videbech P, Lamont RF, Joergensen JS. Risk factors for developing post-traumatic stress disorder following childbirth: A systematic review. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2012;91(11):1261–1272. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01476.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Ayers S, Bond R, Bertullies S, Wijma K. The aetiology of post-traumatic stress following childbirth: A meta-analysis and theoretical framework. Psychol. Med. 2016;46(06):1121–1134. doi: 10.1017/S0033291715002706. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Cohen MM, Ansara D, Schei B, Stuckless N, Stewart DE. Posttraumatic stress disorder after pregnancy, labor, and delivery. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2004;13(3):315–324. doi: 10.1089/154099904323016473. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Srkalović Imširagić A, Begić D, Šimičević L, Bajić Ž. Prediction of posttraumatic stress disorder symptomatology after childbirth—a Croatian longitudinal study. Women Birth. 2017;30(1):e17–e23. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2016.06.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Elklit A, Hartvig T, Christiansen M. Stress disorder in parents of premature neonates–secondary publication. Ugeskr Laeger. 2008;170(45):3643–3645. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.McKinney J, Keyser L, Clinton S, Pagliano C. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 736: Optimizing postpartum care. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132(3):784–785. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002849. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.None TL. Screening for perinatal depression: A missed opportunity. Lancet. 2016;387(10018):505. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00265-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.ACOG Committee Opinion No 757: Screening for perinatal depression. Obstet. Gynecol. 2018;132(5):E208–E212. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002927. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
The data sets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author o reasonable request.