Next Article in Journal
Personality Traits and Mental Health among Lebanese Medical Students: The Mediating Role of Emotional Intelligence
Previous Article in Journal
Nursing Diagnoses, Planned Outcomes and Associated Interventions with Highly Complex Chronic Patients in Primary Care Settings: An Observational Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Systemic Inflammation Is Associated with Pulmonary Hypertension in Isolated Giant Omphalocele: A Population-Based Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Healthcare
Volume 10
Issue 12
10.3390/healthcare10122514
healthcare-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Disability during Early Pregnancy: Using the Sheehan Disability Scale during the First Trimester in Japan

by
Ayako Hada
1,2,3,
Mariko Minatani
4,
Mikiyo Wakamatsu
5 and
Toshinori Kitamura
1,2,6,7,*
1
Kitamura Institute of Mental Health Tokyo, Tokyo 151-0063, Japan
2
Kitamura KOKORO Clinic Mental Health, Tokyo 151-0063, Japan
3
Department of Community Mental Health & Law, National Institute of Mental Health, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, Tokyo 187-8553, Japan
4
Life Value Creation Unit, NTT DATA Institute of Management Consulting, Inc., Tokyo 102-0093, Japan
5
Department of Reproductive Health Care Nursing, Kagoshima University Faculty of Medicine School of Health Sciences, Kagoshima 890-8544, Japan
6
T. and F. Kitamura Foundation for Studies and Skill Advancement in Mental Health, Tokyo 151-0063, Japan
7
Department of Psychiatry, Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya University, Nagoya 466-8550, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2022, 10(12), 2514; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10122514
Submission received: 8 October 2022 / Revised: 8 December 2022 / Accepted: 9 December 2022 / Published: 12 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Pregnancy and Perinatal Health)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Many pregnant women experience impairments in social, occupational, or other important functioning. Aim: This study aimed to confirm measurement and structural invariance of the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) and its validity during early pregnancy. Design: Longitudinal study with two observations. Methods: Questionnaires were distributed to pregnant women attending antenatal clinics at gestational weeks 10–13. Of 382 respondents, 129 responded to the SDS again 1 week later. Results: Confirmatory factor analysis shows good fit with the data: χ2/df = 0, comparative fit index (CFI) = 1.000, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.718. There is acceptable configural, measurement, and structural invariance of the factor structure between primiparas and multiparas as well as between two observation occasions. The Pregnancy–Unique Quantification of Emesis and Nausea, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, and Insomnia Severity Index subscales explain 47% of the variance in SDS scores. Conclusion: Perinatal health care professionals should pay more attention to the difficulties and disabilities that pregnant women face.

1. Introduction

Pregnancy used to be considered to involve little or no psychological or physical difficulties. Disabilities during pregnancy have not received much attention in clinical and research settings. For example, a study in Hamilton County over a period of 18 years shows a psychiatric admission rate of 40.3 per 10,000 women-years among women within 6 months after childbirth, which is much higher than that among non-childbearing women (35.1 per 10,000 women-years) [1]. Surprisingly, this rate is lower than the rate among pregnant women (7.1 per 10,000 women-years). The argument that pregnancy is a psychologically stable period based only on the admission rate may be spurious and paradoxical because psychiatric admission is only an indicator of severe mental illness. Pregnant women, even when psychologically ill, might be more likely to receive care at home. A recent epidemiological study shows that, during the ante-natal versus post-natal periods, women are at similar risk of developing mental illness, mainly mood and anxiety disorders [2]. Approximately 12% of women had an onset of a psychiatric disorder during pregnancy. Another 12% had an onset of a psychiatric disorder during the 3 month period after childbirth. Mental illnesses during pregnancy include depression, obsessive–compulsive disorder [3], sleep disorders [4], other anxiety disorders, eating disorders [5], and tokophobia [6,7], among others [8]. Approximately 28% to 38% of pregnant women experience sleep deficiency during early pregnancy, which includes delayed sleep onset (difficulty falling asleep), frequent awakening during the night, early morning awakening, and poor sleep quality [9]. These sleep problems often are followed by daytime symptoms such as tiredness, poor concentration, and irritability.
Pregnancy is also characterized by difficulties related to physical problems such as nausea and vomiting. Almost 70% of women worldwide experience nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) [10]. Among women with NVP, the emergence of physical symptoms impairs their ability to function [11,12]. NVP has significant effects on the ability to continue performing daily activities and work capacity [13,14]. During the normal progression of pregnancy, pregnant women experience pregnancy-related symptoms such as tiredness, heartburn, backache, and headache [15,16]. These physical discomforts may cause restrictions in daily activity.
The functional difficulties described above frequently limit the ability of pregnant women to engage in important tasks and participate in daily activities. Many pregnant women experience impairments in social (e.g., leisure activity and relating with friends), occupational (e.g., house chores and looking after children), or other important areas of functioning. Although reduced functioning might not be caused by major physical or psychiatric illness, pregnant women might experience poor quality of life due to common mental or physical ill conditions such as antenatal depression [2], NVP [14,17,18], and insomnia [18]. Whatever the cause, impaired functioning should be seen as a disability. Such disabilities are prevalent in work, study, family life, home responsibilities, social life, and leisure activities. Those impaired functions or functional difficulties were dealt with as burdens [14], and were also recognized as correlates of adverse pregnancy outcomes [9].
Effects of such disabilities on pregnancy and neonatal outcomes have not been extensively studied, despite the fact that mental and physical ill-health affect these conditions (e.g., [18,19,20,21,22]). To further our knowledge and to advance nursing care, we need a reliable, valid, and simple-to-use measure of disability in pregnant women. The Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS; @Copyright 1983–2020 Sheehan DV. All right reserved. May be reproduced only with the permission of Dr. David, V., Sheehan, copyright holder. For permission contact [email protected]) [23] is a disability measure used in epidemiological and treatment outcome studies [24,25,26,27,28,29]. The SDS contains three items, which is much shorter than very complex assessments of disability such as the International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps (ICIDH) [30]. The Social Adjustment Scale–Self Report [31] is widely used, but it has 42 items. The SDS covers (a) work and schoolwork, (b) social and leisure activities, and (c) family life and home responsibilities. The SDS is brief and simple to rate. It is also sensitive to changes in the patient’s clinical status [32]. It has test–retest reliability and concurrent validity [33]. Despite its potential clinical utility, the SDS has rarely been administered to women during the perinatal period (e.g., [34]), and it has never been used in pregnant women.
This study evaluates the psychometric properties of the SDS among pregnant women, including goodness-of-fit and configural, measurement, and structural invariance of the factor structure. The study focuses on the invariance (stability) of the factor structure between nulliparas and multiparas and between two observations because the selection of the best-fit model of the factor structure cannot assume that the psychological instrument in question measures the same phenomena when used in different populations, or used in the same population but on more than one measurement occasion. If not, indicators of the instrument do not have the same meaning and they may be biased. Invariance checks include several elements [35,36]. First, each group (e.g., nulliparas vs. multiparas) should have the same pattern of indicators and factors (configural invariance). Second, factor loadings for the same indicators should be invariant across groups (metric invariance, also known as weak factorial invariance). Third, intercepts of the same items should be invariant across groups (scalar invariance, also known as strong factorial invariance). Fourth, residuals (errors) of the same items should be invariant across groups (residual invariance, also known as strict factorial invariance). Fifth, variances of the same factors should be invariant across groups (factor variance invariance). Sixth, means of factors should be invariant across groups (factor mean invariance). Elements 2–4 are called measurement invariance. Elements 5 and 6 are called structural invariance. Hypothesis testing should be conducted in the above sequence [36]. If one step is rejected, the next steps should not be performed.
The validity of a scale should be examined in terms of its construct validity. This means the degree to which the scale measures what it claims to measure. For example, the SDS can be considered valid if scores are significantly correlated with the severity of the mental and physical conditions tightly connected with social disability such as emesis, depression, and insomnia.

Research Question

This study aims to examine measurement and structural invariance of the SDS among pregnant women and evaluate the correlation of SDS scores with scores for emesis and nausea, depression, and insomnia as external variables of construct validity.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Procedures and Participants

Approximately 1500 pregnant women at gestational weeks 10–13 were invited to participate in this study at the antenatal clinic of one general hospital and five private clinics located in Tokyo, Chiba, Ibaraki, and Kagoshima Prefectures in Japan. A set of questionnaires was distributed on two occasions, 1 week apart. We thought that a 1 week interval was appropriate because the participants’ mental state and nausea and vomiting would substantially change in reality rather than reflecting the (un)reliability of measurement if the interval was set at longer than this (such as a 2 week interval). The total sample consisted of 382 pregnant women, corresponding to a participation rate of approximately 25%. Of these, 129 women responded to the retest after 1 week. Test and retest responses were matched by a predetermined number on the set of questionnaires to assure anonymity. Pregnant women were excluded if they (a) were not fluent in Japanese, (b) were aged under 20 years, (c) had an eating disorder, (d) had vaginal bleeding or abdominal pain, (e) had a subchorionic hematoma, or (f) had experienced recurrent miscarriages. Although this was a convenience sample, it consisted of women receiving different types of obstetrical services in Japan. The study period was from January 2017 to May 2019.

2.2. Measurements

We used the Japanese version of the SDS [37]. This is a three-item self-report scale that measures disabilities in domains of (a) work and schoolwork, (b) social and leisure activities, and (c) family life and home responsibilities. Each item is rated from 0 to 10. Arbuckle et al. reported that Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.89 and that the SDS total and item scores are significantly correlated with other measures, including the Global Assessment of Functioning [33].
The Japanese version [38] of the 24 h Pregnancy–Unique Quantification of Emesis and Nausea (PUQE-24) [39] was used simultaneously as a measure of nausea and vomiting during pregnancy. The PUQE-24 is a scoring system based on self-reporting of (a) nausea (duration of nausea in hours in the last 24 h), (b) vomiting (number of vomiting episodes in the last 24 h), and (c) retching (number of retching episodes in the last 24 h), each with a 5 point scale. Measurement invariance and validity were confirmed by Hada et al. [38].
The Japanese version [40,41] of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) [42] was used simultaneously as a measure of depression. Each item checks for frequency of depressive symptoms over the previous 2 weeks with a four-point Likert scale from 0 to 3. The Japanese version of the PHQ-9 has a two-factor structure. The first factor consists of sleep change, fatigue, and appetite change items. The second factor consists of loss of interest, depressed mood, self-blame, concentration difficulty, psychomotor symptom, and suicidality items. Measurement invariance has been confirmed Wakamatsu et al. [43].
The Japanese version [44] of the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) [45] was used simultaneously as a measure of insomnia. The ISI is a self-rating measure consisting of seven items with a five-point Likert type scale ranging from no problem (0) to very severe problem (4). The total score can range from 0 to 28. The Japanese version of the ISI has a two-factor structure. The first factor represents early, middle, and later insomnia and sleep dissatisfaction. The second factor represents interference of insomnia-induced difficulties with daytime functioning, noticeable sleep problems, and worry about sleep problems. Measurement invariance has been confirmed [46].

2.3. Data Analysis

First, we confirmed measurement invariance of the Japanese version of the SDS. As the SDS consists of only three items, it has a single-factor structure and we did not perform a series of exploratory factor analyses (EFAs). After calculating mean, SD, skewness, and kurtosis of each SDS item, we evaluated the factorability of the SDS using the Keiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) index and Bartlett’s sphericity test [47]. A single-factor EFA was sought for identification of factor loading for the SDS items. Next, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the single-factor analysis was performed to evaluate goodness-of-fit. Model fit was examined in terms of chi-squared, comparative fit index (CFI), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). A good fit was defined as χ2/df < 2, CFI > 0.97, SRMR < 0.05, and RMSEA < 0.05. An acceptable fit was defined as χ2/df < 3, CFI > 0.95, SRMR < 0.10, and RMSEA < 0.08 [48,49].
The configural, measurement, and structural invariances of each model were examined across parity and observation time. Measurement invariance is to evaluate the hypothesis of equal loadings and, additionally, equal thresholds [35,36]. Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) is one of the techniques to evaluate it. Starting with configural invariance, we assessed metric, scalar, residual, and factor variance invariances before assessing factor mean invariance [36,50,51]. Progress from one step to the next was judged as acceptable if (a) the χ2 decrease was not significant for the df difference, (b) the decrease in CFI was less than 0.01, or (c) the increase in RMSEA was less than 0.01 [52,53] We applied this procedure because a χ2 decrease is strongly sensitive to the sample size (N). Particularly with large samples, it can result in an unreasonable rejection of the invariance test.
To assess the construct validity of the SDS, we calculated the correlation between SDS scores and PUQE-24, PHQ-9, and ISI scores. We hypothesized that PUQE-24, PHQ-9, and ISI subscales could impact SDS scores. Thus, we performed a series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses. We entered demographic variables (age, parity, and gestational age) in the first step. Next, we entered the PUQE-24 total score, PHQ-9 subscale scores, and ISI subscale scores in the second step.

2.4. Ethical Considerations

This study was approved by the ethics committees of the Kitamura Institute of Mental Health Tokyo (No. 2015052301) and Kagoshima University (No. 170247).

3. Results

The mean (SD) age of the participants was 31.9 (4.9) years. The mean (SD) age of their partners was 33.4 (5.4) years. Unmarried women were rare (6%). Of the participants, 43.9% were nulliparas and 54.8% were multiparas. All participants reported neither current depression episode nor general anxiety disorder. Women who reported a current manic episode, and insomnia were one and one, respectively. Those cases were excluded from analyses. A total of 377 of those had no pharmacotherapy (e.g., antidepressant, antianxiety, or sleep medications), 3 were missing. Mean, SD, skewness, and kurtosis of each SDS item are shown in Table 1. The three items are mildly positively skewed (0.50 to 0.98) and kurtosis is low (−0.62 to 0.25). KMO is 0.735 and the chi-square statistic (df) is 618.901 (3), p < 0.001 from Bartlett’s test of sphericity. Therefore, the data appear factorable. Factor loadings of the items in a single-factor model are high, ranging from 0.79 to 0.90. CFA of this single-factor model shows good fit with the data: χ2/df = 0.000, CFI = 1.000, SRMR = 0.000, and RMSEA = 0.520.
Configural and measurement invariances between the nulliparas and multiparas and between test and retest occasions are acceptable (Table 2). Factor means are also similar between the primiparas and multiparas, as well as between test and retest occasions (Table 3).
SDS, PUQE-24, PHQ-9, and ISI scores are moderately correlated with each other (Table 4). After controlling for demographic variables in the first step, the SDS total score is significantly predicted by the PUQE-24, PHQ-9, and ISI scores (F [8] = 39.830, p < 0.001). R2 changes at step 2 is 0.476 (Table 5). All of these variables are significantly correlated with SDS scores. This model explains 47% of the variance in SDS scores (adjusted R2 = 0.47).

4. Discussion

This study shows that the single-factor structure of the SDS is robust in pregnant Japanese women. Its structure is invariant regardless of parity or observation time. Taking into account the SDS’s brevity and simplicity, we think that the use of the SDS in clinical and research settings for perinatal mental health care is promising. This is particularly the case when clinicians and researchers observe pregnant women’s disabilities across mental states such as depression, anxiety, fear, and insomnia, as well as physical complaints such as low body weight, pain, and skin conditions. The SDS may be used as an outcome measure for interventions by midwives and other perinatal health care professionals.
Disability in early pregnancy can be substantially explained by NVP, depression, and insomnia. Nearly half of the variance in QOL of pregnant women is explained by these symptoms. NVP impairs women’s QOL and, therefore, their ability to maintain day-to-day activities as well as work capacity in the domains of work/schoolwork, social/leisure, and family life/home responsibility [14]. According to a systematic review of factors influencing the quality of life [17], NVP, depression, and sleep disturbance are significantly associated with the poor quality of life. In this line, our results of hierarchical multiple regression analyses explain the poor quality of life. It is a characteristic condition in pregnant women. However, it is likely that the burdens or disabilities of pregnant women will not be noticed.
Disability is an umbrella term for impairments, activity limitations, and participation restrictions. It denotes the negative aspects of the interaction between an individual (with a health condition) and that individual’s contextual factors (environmental and personal factors) [54]. Therefore, various health-related conditions that have consequences of an impact on well-being in women’s life, need to be regarded as the disability. These physical and psychological symptoms should be carefully treated and attention should be paid to disability among pregnant women.
The different links between each of the three items with other correlates might be of interest to researchers. For example, Gutiérrez-Rojas et al. studied the predictors of the three SDS items in patients with bipolar disorder [55]. They found that work disability is predicted by the number of previous manic episodes and hospitalizations, as well as lower educational level; social life disability is predicted by the number of previous depressive episodes; and family life disability is predicted by higher age and drinking problems. The three SDS items during pregnancy may be predicted by different correlates and may predict different outcomes, including the course of pregnancy, early birth, and problems in neonates.

5. Limitations

This study has some limitations. The study was based on a convenient medium-sized sample. Generalizations should be made with caution. The inclusion criteria included mothers at gestational weeks 10–13. Although this was intended to include a homogeneous population of pregnant women, we may have had different results if different gestational weeks had been studied. The findings were based on self-report. Concordance of self-reports with data from clinical observers or family members should be examined.

6. Conclusions

Taking into consideration the drawbacks mentioned above, the SDS might be promising as an easy and robust measure of disability among pregnant women.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M. and T.K.; methodology, M.M., A.H. and T.K.; validation, A.H. and T.K.; formal analysis, A.H.; investigation, A.H., M.M. and M.W.; writing—original draft preparation, A.H.; writing—review and editing, T.K.; supervision, T.K.; project administration, A.H. and T.K.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors declare that they have not received any funding or research grants in the course of study.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the ethics committees of the Kitamura Institute of Mental Health Tokyo (No. 2015052301) and Kagoshima University (No. 170247). The authors assert that all procedures contributing to this study comply with the ethical standards of the National and Institutional Committees on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975 as revised in 2008.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. We changed the sentence following your instruction.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and analysed in the present study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for all of the participants and the Japanese Red Cross Medical Centre, Endou Ladies Clinic, Kubonoya Women’s Hospital, Tsuchiya Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinic, Aiiku Hospital, and Nakae Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinic. We would also like to thank all of the participants of this study and the members of the institutional review board at the Kitamura Institute of Mental Health Tokyo and Kumamoto University for their comments on the research protocol.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Paffenbarger, R.S. Epidemiological aspects of mental illness associated with childbearing. In Motherhood and Mental Illness; Brockington, I.F., Kumar, R., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1982; pp. 19–36. [Google Scholar]
  2. Kitamura, T.; Yoshida, K.; Okano, T.; Kinoshita, K.; Hayashi, M.; Toyoda, N.; Ito, M.; Kudo, N.; Tada, K.; Kanazawa, K.; et al. Multicentre prospective study of perinatal depression in Japan: Incidence and correlates of antenatal and postnatal depression. Arch. Womens Ment. Health 2006, 9, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Abramowitz, J.S.; Schwartz, S.A.; Moore, K.M.; Luenzmann, K.R. Obsessive-compulsive symptoms in pregnancy and the puerperium: A review of the literature. J. Anxiety Disord. 2003, 17, 461–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Nodine, P.M.; Matthews, E.E. Common Sleep Disorders: Management Strategies and Pregnancy Outcomes. J. Midwifery Womens Health 2013, 58, 368–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Makino, M.; Yasushi, M.; Tsutsui, S. The risk of eating disorder relapse during pregnancy and after delivery and postpartum depression among women recovered from eating disorders. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2020, 20, 323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hall, W.A.; Hauck, Y.L.; Carty, E.M.; Hutton, E.K.; Fenwick, J.; Stoll, K. Childbirth Fear, Anxiety, Fatigue, and Sleep Deprivation in Pregnant Women. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Neonatal Nurs. 2009, 38, 567–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hofberg, K.; Brockington, I.F. Tokophobia: An unreasoning dread of childbirth: A series of 26 cases. Br. J. Psychiatry 2000, 176, 83–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Brockington, I.F.; Macdonald, E.; Wainscott, G. Anxiety, obsessions and morbid preoccupations in pregnancy and the puerperium. Arch. Womens Ment. Health 2006, 9, 253–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Okun, M.L.; Kline, C.E.; Roberts, J.M.; Wettlaufer, B.; Glover, K.; Hall, M. Prevalence of Sleep Deficiency in Early Gestation and its Associations with Stress and Depressive Symptoms. J. Womens Health 2013, 22, 1028–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Einarson, T.R.; Piwko, C.; Koren, G. Quantifying the global rates of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy: A meta analysis. J. Popul. Ther. Clin. Pharmacol. 2013, 20, e171–e183. [Google Scholar]
  11. Attard, C.L.; Kohli, M.A.; Coleman, S.; Bradley, C.; Hux, M.; Atanackovic, G.; Torrance, G.W. The burden of illness of severe nausea and vomiting of pregnancy in the United States. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2002, 186, S220–S227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Heitmann, K.; Nordeng, H.; Havnen, G.C.; Solheimsnes, A.; Holst, L. The burden of nausea and vomiting during pregnancy: Severe impacts on quality of life, daily life functioning and willingness to become pregnant again—Results from a cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2017, 17, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Bai, G.; Korfage, I.J.; Groen, E.H.; Jaddoe, V.W.; Mautner, E.; Raat, H. Associations between Nausea, Vomiting, Fatigue and Health-Related Quality of Life of Women in Early Pregnancy: The Generation R Study. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0166133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Wood, H.; McKellar, L.V.; Lightbody, M. Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: Blooming or bloomin’ awful? A review of the literature. Women Birth 2013, 26, 100–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Davis, D.C. The Discomforts of Pregnancy. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Neonatal Nurs. 1996, 25, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Nazik, E.; Eryilmaz, G. Incidence of pregnancy-related discomforts and management approaches to relieve them among pregnant women. J. Clin. Nurs. 2014, 23, 1736–1750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Lagadec, N.; Steinecker, M.; Kapassi, A.; Magnier, A.M.; Chastang, J.; Robert, S.; Gaouaou, N.; Ibanez, G. Factors influencing the quality of life of pregnant women: A systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2018, 18, 455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Redshaw, M.; Malouf, R.; Gao, H.; Gray, R. Women with disability: The experience of maternity care during pregnancy, labour and birth and the postnatal period. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2013, 13, 174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Fenwick, J.; Gamble, J.; Nathan, E.; Bayes, S.; Hauck, Y. Pre- and postpartum levels of childbirth fear and the relationship to birth outcomes in a cohort of Australian women. J. Clin. Nurs. 2009, 18, 667–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Glasheen, C.; Richardson, G.A.; Fabio, A. A systematic review of the effects of postnatal maternal anxiety on children. Arch. Womens Ment. Health 2010, 13, 61–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Khashan, A.S.; Everard, C.; McCowan, L.M.E.; Dekker, G.; Moss-Morris, R.; Baker, P.N.; Poston, L.; Walker, J.J.; Kenny, L.C. Second-trimester maternal distress increases the risk of small for gestational age. Psychol. Med. 2014, 44, 2799–2810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Martini, J.; Wittich, J.; Petzoldt, J.; Winkel, S.; Einsle, F.; Siegert, J.; Wittchen, H.U. Maternal anxiety disorders prior to conception, psychopathology during pregnancy and early infants’ development: A prospective-longitudinal study. Arch. Womens. Ment. Health 2013, 16, 549–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Sheehan, D.V. The Anxiety Disease; Scribner: New York, NY, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  24. Thiel, F.; Iffland, L.; Drozd, F.; Haga, S.M.; Martini, J.; Weidner, K.; Höfler, M.; Beesdo-Baum, K.; Wittchen, H. Specific relations of dimensional anxiety and manifest anxiety disorders during pregnancy with difficult early infant temperament: A longitudinal cohort study. Arch. Womens Ment. Health 2020, 23, 535–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Andrews, G.; Sanderson, K.; Beard, J. Burden of disease: Methods of calculating disability from mental disorder. Br. J. Psychiatry 1998, 173, 123–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Bassett, S.S.; Chase, G.A.; Flostein, M.F.; Reginer, D.A. Disability and psychiatric disorders in an urban community: Measurement, prevalence and outcomes. Psychol. Med. 1998, 28, 509–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Brewin, C.R.; Veltro, F.; Wing, J.K.; MacCarthy, B.; Brugha, T.S. The Assessment of psychiatric disability in the community a comparison of clinical, staff, and family interviews. Br. J. Psychiatry 1990, 157, 671–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Murray, C.J.L.; Lopez, A.D. Global mortality, disability, and the contribution of risk factors: Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet 1997, 349, 1436–1442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Williams, C.D.; Schouten, R. Assessment of occupational impairment and disability from depression. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2008, 50, 441–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. World Health Organization. International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps: A Manual of Classification Relating to the Consequences of Disease; Published in Accordance with Resolution WHA29.35 of the Twenty-Ninth World Health Assembly, May 1976; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1980; Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/41003 (accessed on 7 October 2022).
  31. Weissman, M.M.; Bothwell, S. Assessment of Social Adjustment by Patient Self-Report. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 1976, 33, 1111–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Leon, A.C.; Shear, M.K.; Portera, L.; Klerman, G.L. Assessing impairment in patients with panic disorder: The Sheehan Disability Scale. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 1992, 27, 78–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Arbuckle, R.; Frye, M.A.; Brecher, M.; Paulsson, B.; Rajagopalan, K.; Palmer, S.; Degl’Innocenti, A. The psychometric validation of the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) in patients with bipolar disorder. Psychiatry Res. 2009, 165, 163–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Misri, S.; Swift, E.; Abizadeh, J.; Shankar, R. Overcoming functional impairment in postpartum depressed or anxious women: A pilot trial of desvenlafaxine with flexible dosing. Ther. Adv. Psychopharmacol. 2016, 6, 269–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Desa, D. Evaluating Measurement Invariance of TALIS 2013 Complex Scales: Comparison between Continuous and Categorical Multiple-Group Confirmatory Factor Analyses. OECD Education Working Papers No. 103. 2014. Available online: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/paper/5jz2kbbvlb7k-en (accessed on 7 October 2022).
  36. Vandenberg, R.J.; Lance, C.E. A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organ. Res. Methods 2000, 3, 4–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Yoshida, T.; Otsubo, T.; Tsuchida, H.; Wada, Y.; Kamijima, K.; Fukui, K. Sheehan The Japanese version of the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDISS): Development, reliability and validity. Jpn. J. Clin. Psychopharmacol. 2004, 7, 1645–1653. [Google Scholar]
  38. Hada, A.; Minatani, M.; Wakamatsu, M.; Koren, G.; Kitamura, T. The Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis and Nausea (PUQE-24): Configural, Measurement, and Structural Invariance between Nulliparas and Multiparas and across Two Measurement Time Points. Healthcare 2021, 9, 1553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Ebrahimi, N.; Maltepe, C.; Bournissen, F.G.; Koren, G. Nausea and Vomiting of Pregnancy: Using the 24-h Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis (PUQE-24) Scale. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 2009, 31, 803–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Inagaki, M.; Ohtsuki, T.; Yonemoto, N.; Kawashima, Y.; Saitoh, A.; Oikawa, Y.; Kurosawa, M.; Muramatsu, K.; Furukawa, T.A.; Yamada, M. Validity of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 and PHQ-2 in general internal medicine primary care at a Japanese rural hospital: A cross-sectional study. Gen. Hosp. Psychiatry 2013, 35, 592–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Muramatsu, K.; Kamijima, K. Puraimarikea shinnryou to utubyou sukuri-ningu tsuru: Patient Health Questionnaire-9 nihongoban ‘Kokoroto Karadano Shitsumonhyou’ (Primary care and depression screening tool: The Japanese version of the Patient health Questionnaire-9 ‘Questionnaire of Mind and Body’). Shindan Chiryou 2009, 97, 1465–1473. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar]
  42. Spitzer, R.L.; Kroenke, K.; Williams, J.B.W. Validation and Utility of a Self-report Version of PRIME-MD: The PHQ primary care study. JAMA 1999, 282, 1737–1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Wakamatsu, M.; Minatani, M.; Hada, A.; Kitamura, T. The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 among First-Trimester Pregnant Women in Japan: Factor Structure and Measurement and Structural Invariance between Nulliparas and Multiparas and across Perinatal Measurement Time Points. Open J. Depress. 2021, 10, 121–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Munezawa, T.; Morin, C.M.; Inoue, Y.; Nedate, K. nihonngoban fuminjuusyoudo sitsumonnhyou no kaihatsu. (Development of the Insomnia Severity Scale Japanese version). Jpn. J. Psychiatr. Treat. 2009, 24, 219–225. [Google Scholar]
  45. Bastien, C.H.; Vallières, A.; Morin, C.M. Validation of the Insomnia Severity Index as an outcome measure for insomnia research. Sleep Med. 2001, 2, 297–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Shinohara, E.; Minatani, M.; Hada, A.; Yamagishi, Y.; Wakamatsu, M.; Kitamura, T. The Insomnia Severity Index: Factor Structure and Measurement and Structural Invariance across Perinatal Measurement Time Points; Kitamura Institute of Mental Health: Tokyo, Japan, 2022; in preparation. [Google Scholar]
  47. Burton, L.J.; Mazerolle, S.M. Survey Instrument Validity Part I: Principles of Survey Instrument Development and Validation in Athletic Training Education Research. Athl. Train. Educ. J. 2011, 6, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bentler, P.M. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol. Bull. 1990, 107, 238–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Schermelleh-Engel, K.; Moosbrugger, H.; Müller, H. Evaluating the Fit of Structural Equation Models: Tests of Significance and Descriptive Goodness-of-Fit Measures. Methods Psychol. Res. 2003, 8, 23–74. [Google Scholar]
  50. van de Schoot, R.; Lugtig, P.; Hox, J. A checklist for testing measurement invariance. Eur. J. Dev. Psychol. 2012, 9, 486–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. van de Vijver, F.J.R.; Leung, K. Methodological Issues in Psychological Research on Culture. J. Cross. Cult. Psychol. 2000, 31, 33–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Chen, F.F. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 2007, 14, 464–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Cheung, G.W.; Rensvold, R.B. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 2002, 9, 233–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health; Chuohouki Publishing. Co. Ltd.: Tokyo, Japan, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  55. Gutiérrez-Rojas, L.; Jurado, D.; Gurpegui, M. Factors associated with work, social life and family life disability in bipolar disorder patients. Psychiatry Res. 2011, 186, 254–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Mean, SD, skewness, and kurtosis of SDS items (N = 377).
Table 1. Mean, SD, skewness, and kurtosis of SDS items (N = 377).
ContentNMeanSDSkewnessKurtosisFactor Loading
Single-Factor Model
1Work/school3773.12.60.50−0.620.85
2Social life3762.72.70.80−0.150.90
3Family life/home responsibilities3762.42.60.980.250.79
Table
Table 2. Measurement and structural invariance of the SDS.
Table 2. Measurement and structural invariance of the SDS.
χ2dfχ2/dfΔχ2 (df)CFIΔCFIRMSEAΔRMSEAAICJudgement
Nulliparas (n = 168) vs. multiparas (n = 208)
Configural0.00000.000Ref1.000Ref0.042Ref36.000ACCEPT
Metric3.30421.6523.304 (2) NS0.9980.0020.0980.05735.304ACCEPT
Scalar23.12954.62619.825 (3) *0.9710.0270.084+0.01649.129ACCEPT
Residual28.98083.7865.851 (3) NS0.9660.0050.081+0.00348.980ACCEPT
Factor variance31.25593.6012.276 (1) NS0.9640.0020.3730.28949.255ACCEPT
Time 1 (n = 380) vs. Time 2 (n = 128)
Configural0.00000.000Ref1.000Ref0.000Ref36.000ACCEPT
Metric0.53220.2660.532 (2) NS1.0000.0000.0000.00032.532ACCEPT
Scalar5.83351.1675.301(3) NS0.9980.0020.0240.02431.833ACCEPT
Residual12.26181.5336.428 (3) NS0.9900.0080.0430.01932.261ACCEPT
Factor variance12.40591.3780.144 (1) NS0.992+0.0020.036+0.00730.405ACCEPT
NS, not significant; * p < 0.001.
Table
Table 3. Factor mean invariance of the SDS.
Table 3. Factor mean invariance of the SDS.
Differences in the Factor Mean (SE)
Multiparas as compared with nulliparas0.070 (0.223) NS
Time 2 as compared with Time 10.056 (0.215) NS
NS, not significant; SE, standard error.
Table
Table 4. Correlation of the SDS, PUQE-24, PHQ-9 subscales, and ISI subscales.
Table 4. Correlation of the SDS, PUQE-24, PHQ-9 subscales, and ISI subscales.
123456
1: SDS total−
2: PUQE-24 total0.39 *−
3: PHQ-9 1st factor0.58 *0.36 *−
4: PHQ-9 2nd factor0.63 *0.39 *0.61 *−
5: ISI 1st factor0.39 *0.29 *0.58 *0.44 *−
6: ISI 2nd factor0.41 *0.29 *0.51 *0.37 *0.62 *−
* p < 0.001. Note. SDS, Sheehan Disability Scale; PUQE-24, Pregnancy–Unique Quantification of Emesis and Nausea; PHQ-9, Patient Health Questionnaire-9; ISI, Insomnia Severity Index.
Table
Table 5. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses of SDS with PUQE-24 and PHQ-9 subscales and ISI subscales in pregnancy.
Table 5. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses of SDS with PUQE-24 and PHQ-9 subscales and ISI subscales in pregnancy.
R2R2 ChangeFF ChangedfΒ
Step 1. Demographic0.003Ref0.355Ref3
Age 0.049
Parity 0.014
Gestational age −0.013
Step 2. NVP, depression, insomnia in pregnancy0.4790.47639.830 ***63.3268
PUQE-24 0.131 **
PHQ-9 1st factor 0.254 ***
PHQ-9 2nd factor 0.388 ***
ISI 1st factor −0.023
ISI 2nd factor 0.022 *
Adjusted R20.47
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. Note. SDS, Sheehan Disability Scale; PUQE-24, Pregnancy–Unique Quantification of Emesis and Nausea; PHQ-9, Patient Health Questionnaure-9; ISI, Insomnia Severity Index.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hada, A.; Minatani, M.; Wakamatsu, M.; Kitamura, T. Disability during Early Pregnancy: Using the Sheehan Disability Scale during the First Trimester in Japan. Healthcare 2022, 10, 2514. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10122514

AMA Style

Hada A, Minatani M, Wakamatsu M, Kitamura T. Disability during Early Pregnancy: Using the Sheehan Disability Scale during the First Trimester in Japan. Healthcare. 2022; 10(12):2514. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10122514

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hada, Ayako, Mariko Minatani, Mikiyo Wakamatsu, and Toshinori Kitamura. 2022. "Disability during Early Pregnancy: Using the Sheehan Disability Scale during the First Trimester in Japan" Healthcare 10, no. 12: 2514. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10122514

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop