Factors associated with antenatal depression in pregnant Korean females: the effect of bipolarity on depressive symptoms

Figures & data

Table 1 Sociodemographic and obstetric characteristics of participants (n=84)

Characteristics	n (%)
Age, years
<30	35 (41.7)
30–34	34 (40.5)
≥35	15 (17.9)
Education level
≤ High school	22 (26.2)
≥College	62 (73.8)
Religious practices
No	48 (57.1)
Yes	35 (41.7)
Socioeconomic status
High	3 (3.6)
Middle	66 (78.6)
Low	14 (16.7)
Monthly household income (10,000 won)
<200	43 (51.2)
200–399	33 (39.3)
≥400	8 (9.5)
Employment status
Employed	70 (83.3)
Unemployed	14 (16.7)
Communication with spouse
Good	38 (45.2)
Moderate	33 (39.3)
Bad	13 (15.5)
Marital satisfaction
Satisfied	26 (31.0)
Medium	43 (51.2)
Dissatisfied	15 (17.9)
Gestational age
<30 weeks	47 (56.0)
≥30 weeks	37 (44.0)
Parity
Primiparous	40 (47.6)
Multiparous	44 (52.4)
Planned pregnancy
Yes	70 (83.3)
No	14 (16.7)
Family history of psychiatric illness
No	80 (95.2)
Yes	4 (4.8)
Current obstetric or medical problems
No	79 (94.0)
Yes	5 (6.0)

Table 2 Differences in EPDS scores according to sociodemographic and obstetric characteristics

Characteristics	EPDS scores
	Mean (SD)	P-value
Age, years		0.193
<30	6.8 (3.2)\
30–34	8.2 (3.2)
≥35	7.3 (2.2)
Education level		0.114
≤ High school	8.3 (4.1)
≥ College	7.1 (2.6)
Religious practices		0.844
None	7.5 (3.1)
Christian	7.3 (3.1)
Socioeconomic status		0.719
High	5.7 (2.1)
Middle	7.2 (3.0)
Low	8.9 (3.3)
Monthly household income (10,000 won)		0.904
<200	7.5 (3.2)
200–399	7.2 (2.8)
≥400	7.6 (3.9)
Employment status		0.184
Employed	7.6 (3.1)
Unemployed	6.4 (2.7)
Communication with spouse		0.027*
Good	6.5 (2.7)
Moderate	7.9 (3.1)
Bad	8.9 (3.4)
Marital satisfaction		0.012*
Satisfied	6.7 (2.7)
Medium	7.2 (2.8)
Dissatisfied	9.5 (3.7)
Gestational age		0.769
<30 weeks	7.3 (2.9)
≥30 weeks	7.5 (3.3)
Parity		0.519
Primiparous	7.2 (2.9)
Multiparous	7.6 (3.3)
Planned pregnancy		0.705
Yes	7.5 (3.1)
No	7.1 (3.3)
Family history of psychiatric illness		0.200
No	7.6 (33.1)
Yes	5.5 (2.1)
Current obstetric/medical problems		0.316
No	7.5 (3.1)
Yes	6.0 (2.9)

Note:

* Statistically significant.

Abbreviations: EPDS, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale; SD, standard deviation.

Table 3 Correlations between EPDS scores and social support or social conflict

	EPDS scores
	r	P-value
Social support	−0.347	0.001*
Social conflict	0.472	<0.001*

Note:

* Statistically significant.

Abbreviations: r, correlation coefficient; EPDS, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale.

Table 4 Difference of EPDS scores according to K-MDQ

	EPDS scores
	Mean (SD)	P-value
K-MDQ
Positive (n=19)	9.4 (3.9)	0.001*
Negative (n=65)	6.9 (2.5)

Note:

* Statistically significant.

Abbreviations: EPDS, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale; K-MDQ, Korean version of the Mood Disorder Questionnaire; SD, standard deviation.

Table 5 Factor analysis of K-MDQ

K-MDQ item	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3
More energy	0.823
More active	0.776
More self-confident	0.685
More social or outgoing	0.673
More talkative	0.646
Felt so good or hyper		0.739
So irritable		0.721
Less sleep		0.659
Excessive, foolish, or risky			0.737
Easily distracted			0.647
Spending money			0.546
More interested in sex			0.544
Thoughts raced			0.519
Eigenvalue	4.69	1.50	1.21
Total variance explained	36.08%	11.52%	9.29%

Abbreviation: K-MDQ, Korean version of the Mood Disorder Questionnaire.

Table 6 Factors predicting EPDS scores

Characteristics	EPDS scores (R^2=0.410)
	β	t	P-value
Age, years	0.146	1.524	0.132
Social support	−0.187	0.104	0.067
Social conflict	0.307	3.332	0.004*
K-MDQ (reference negative)
Positive	0.305	2.609	0.003*
Communication with spouse (reference good)
Moderate	0.788	0.712	0.918
Bad	1.105	0.670	0.820
Marital satisfaction (reference satisfied)
Medium	0.772	−0.013	0.339
Dissatisfied	1.173	0.048	0.210

Note:

* Statistically significant.

Abbreviations: β, beta coefficient; EPDS, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale; K-MDQ, Korean version of the Mood Disorder Questionnaire.