Cargando…

Development and validation across trimester of the Prenatal Eating Behaviors Screening tool

Rapid screening tools are useful for identifying at-risk patients and referring them for further assessment and treatment, but none exist that consider the unique medical needs of pregnant women with eating disorders (EDs). There is a need for a rapid, sensitive, and specific screening tool that can...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Claydon, Elizabeth A., Lilly, Christa L., Ceglar, Jordan X., Dueñas-Garcia, Omar F.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Vienna 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9058752/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35499780
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00737-022-01230-y
_version_ 1784698179504046080
author Claydon, Elizabeth A.
Lilly, Christa L.
Ceglar, Jordan X.
Dueñas-Garcia, Omar F.
author_facet Claydon, Elizabeth A.
Lilly, Christa L.
Ceglar, Jordan X.
Dueñas-Garcia, Omar F.
author_sort Claydon, Elizabeth A.
collection PubMed
description Rapid screening tools are useful for identifying at-risk patients and referring them for further assessment and treatment, but none exist that consider the unique medical needs of pregnant women with eating disorders (EDs). There is a need for a rapid, sensitive, and specific screening tool that can be used to identify a potential ED in pregnancy. We started with a set of 25 questions, developed from our qualitative work along with other ED screening tools, and tested on a development (n = 190) and validation sample (n = 167). Statistical analysis included factor analysis and logistic regressions with ROC curves. Development and validation samples were combined for trimester analysis (n = 357). Refining the tool to 12 items demonstrated strong internal reliability (development alpha = 0.95, validation alpha = 0.91). With correlated errors, questions demonstrated acceptable CFA fit (development: GFI: 0.91, RMSEA: 0.10, NNFI: 0.95; validation: GFI: 0.85, RMSEA: 0.14, NNFI: 0.86). Similar fits were seen by trimester: first trimester n = 127, GFI: 0.89, RMSEA: 0.12, NNFI: 0.94; second trimester n = 150, GFI: 0.83, RMSEA: 0.14, NNFI: 0.88; third trimester n = 80, GFI: 0.99, NNFI: 0.99. Validation against current ED diagnosis demonstrated acceptable sensitivity and specificity using a cutoff of 39 (development sensitivity = 80.7%, specificity = 79.7%, OR = 16.42, 95% CI: 7.51, 35.88; validation sensitivity = 69.2%, specificity = 86.5%, OR: 17.43, 95% CI: 6.46, 47.01). Findings suggest the PEBS tool can reliably and sensitively detect EDs across pregnancy trimesters with 12 questions. A further implication of this work is to reduce health and mental health treatment disparities through this standard and rapid screening measure to ensure early identification and treatment. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00737-022-01230-y.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9058752
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Vienna
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90587522022-05-02 Development and validation across trimester of the Prenatal Eating Behaviors Screening tool Claydon, Elizabeth A. Lilly, Christa L. Ceglar, Jordan X. Dueñas-Garcia, Omar F. Arch Womens Ment Health Original Article Rapid screening tools are useful for identifying at-risk patients and referring them for further assessment and treatment, but none exist that consider the unique medical needs of pregnant women with eating disorders (EDs). There is a need for a rapid, sensitive, and specific screening tool that can be used to identify a potential ED in pregnancy. We started with a set of 25 questions, developed from our qualitative work along with other ED screening tools, and tested on a development (n = 190) and validation sample (n = 167). Statistical analysis included factor analysis and logistic regressions with ROC curves. Development and validation samples were combined for trimester analysis (n = 357). Refining the tool to 12 items demonstrated strong internal reliability (development alpha = 0.95, validation alpha = 0.91). With correlated errors, questions demonstrated acceptable CFA fit (development: GFI: 0.91, RMSEA: 0.10, NNFI: 0.95; validation: GFI: 0.85, RMSEA: 0.14, NNFI: 0.86). Similar fits were seen by trimester: first trimester n = 127, GFI: 0.89, RMSEA: 0.12, NNFI: 0.94; second trimester n = 150, GFI: 0.83, RMSEA: 0.14, NNFI: 0.88; third trimester n = 80, GFI: 0.99, NNFI: 0.99. Validation against current ED diagnosis demonstrated acceptable sensitivity and specificity using a cutoff of 39 (development sensitivity = 80.7%, specificity = 79.7%, OR = 16.42, 95% CI: 7.51, 35.88; validation sensitivity = 69.2%, specificity = 86.5%, OR: 17.43, 95% CI: 6.46, 47.01). Findings suggest the PEBS tool can reliably and sensitively detect EDs across pregnancy trimesters with 12 questions. A further implication of this work is to reduce health and mental health treatment disparities through this standard and rapid screening measure to ensure early identification and treatment. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00737-022-01230-y. Springer Vienna 2022-05-02 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9058752/ /pubmed/35499780 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00737-022-01230-y Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visithttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Claydon, Elizabeth A.
Lilly, Christa L.
Ceglar, Jordan X.
Dueñas-Garcia, Omar F.
Development and validation across trimester of the Prenatal Eating Behaviors Screening tool
title Development and validation across trimester of the Prenatal Eating Behaviors Screening tool
title_full Development and validation across trimester of the Prenatal Eating Behaviors Screening tool
title_fullStr Development and validation across trimester of the Prenatal Eating Behaviors Screening tool
title_full_unstemmed Development and validation across trimester of the Prenatal Eating Behaviors Screening tool
title_short Development and validation across trimester of the Prenatal Eating Behaviors Screening tool
title_sort development and validation across trimester of the prenatal eating behaviors screening tool
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9058752/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35499780
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00737-022-01230-y
work_keys_str_mv AT claydonelizabetha developmentandvalidationacrosstrimesteroftheprenataleatingbehaviorsscreeningtool
AT lillychristal developmentandvalidationacrosstrimesteroftheprenataleatingbehaviorsscreeningtool
AT ceglarjordanx developmentandvalidationacrosstrimesteroftheprenataleatingbehaviorsscreeningtool
AT duenasgarciaomarf developmentandvalidationacrosstrimesteroftheprenataleatingbehaviorsscreeningtool