Levene’s test produced a p-value > 0.05 for all the anthropometric measurements in the table. It can therefore be concluded that the variances in HFIAS between the anthropometric measurements are equal. The independent samples t-test results however, indicate that there is no significant difference between the HFIAS scores and the individual anthropometric measurements (p- value > 0.05).
Table 4.14: Household food security status in relation to maternal anthropometric measurements
Anthropometric measurements HFIAS Independent
samples test P-value Lower 50%
(Mean ±SD)
Higher 50%
(Mean ±SD)
Pre-pregnancy weight 66.16 ± 13.71 67.31 ± 15.07 0.63
Height from clinic 1.59 ± 0.05 1.58 ± 0.05 0.44
Height taken by fieldworkers 1.59 ± 0.05 1.58 ± 0.05 0.44
BMI using clinic height 26.02 ± 5.05 26.64 ± 5.68 0.46
BMI using height taken by fieldworkers 26.13 ± 5.30 26.56 ± 5.68 0.61
Delivery weight 77.03 ± 13.90 78.75 ± 12.75 0.40
Total weight gained 11.72 ± 5.40 10.11 ± 4.48 0.07
*Independent samples t-test; p, 0.05 considered significant between two groups
The mean EPDS score according to different age groups is presented in table 4.16.
The table also shows the frequency of participants in the lower 50% and higher 50%
EPDS score category within the different age groups. The mean EPDS score for the lower 50% category was 7.34 ± 3.53. The mean EPDS score for the participants in the higher 50% category was 18.43 ± 3.88.
Table 4.16: EPDS score in relation to age groups
Table 4.17 shows the participants who possibly experienced anxiety as they scored maximum points on question three and four on the EPDS questionnaire. The table also shows the number of participants with suicide ideation (scored one to three points on question 10 of the EPDS questionnaire). Possible anxiety and suicide ideation are also divided into lower 50% and higher 50%. Approximately 77% of participants possibly experienced anxiety and 29% of the study participants had suicide ideation.
Table 4.17: Possible anxiety and suicide ideation based on EPDS
Age Groups EPDS Score
Mean ± SD Lower 50% Higher 50%
Whole group (N = 172)
11.03 ± 7.16 116 56
18 – 24 years (n = 81)
10.58 ± 6.47 54 27
25 – 34 years (n = 74)
11.08 ± 6.62 51 23
35 – 41 years (n = 17)
12.12 ± 4.51 11 6
EPDS
Lower 50% Higher 50%
Possible Anxiety
Yes (n = 133) 68% (n = 90) 32% (n = 43)
No (n = 39) 67% (n = 26) 33% (n = 13)
Suicide ideation
Yes (n = 50) 68% (n = 34) 32% (n = 16)
No (n= 122) 67% (n = 82) 33% (n = 40)
4.6.1 Presence of antenatal depression and socio-demographic characteristics
Table 4.18 on the next page shows the participant socio-demographic characteristics under the two EPDS score categories and depicts that a large number of participants were in the lower 50% EPDS score category regardless of relationship status, living arrangements, level of education, employment status, household income, access to a social grant, planning of pregnancy and health conditions that occurred before and during pregnancy. A Chi-square test was conducted to determine associations between the EPDS and the socio-demographic variables. Results of the test indicate there was no statistically significant association between the EPDS and the socio- demographic variables.
Table 4.18: Presence of possible antenatal depression in relation to maternal socio- demographic characteristics
Socio-demographic characteristics EPDS P-value #
Lower 50%
(n = 116)
Higher 50%
(n = 56) Relationship Status
0.60
Single 56 32
Married 16 8
Have a partner 43 16
Separated 1 0
Living Arrangements
Live Alone 8 2
0.41
Live with friends 4 0
Live with husband/partner 14 5
Live with husband/partner and children 7 5
Live with parents 49 31
Live with husband/partner and parents 2 0
Other(Grandparents/Relatives/Siblings) 32 13 Education
0.88
Yes 107 52
No 9 4
Level of Education
Primary school 1 1
0.52
Secondary school 65 36
Tertiary 41 13
Employment status
Employed 41 20 0.96
Unemployed 75 36
Stable household income
Yes 80 46 0.06
No 36 10
Grant
Yes 56 29 0.66
No 60 27
Planning status
Planned pregnancy 24 15 0.37
Unplanned pregnancy 92 41
Parity
First pregnancy 54 27 0.83
Not first pregnancy 62 29
Pre-existing health condition before pregnancy
No condition 114 55
0.68
Diabetes mellitus 0 0
High Blood Pressure 1 0
Anaemia 1 1
Health condition during pregnancy
No condition 105 53
GDM 4 0 0.16
High Blood Pressure 4 2 0.96
Anaemia 3 1 0.74
#Pearson Chi-Square; p < 0.05 considered significant
4.6.2 Presence of antenatal depression and maternal anthropometric measurements The EPDS scores in relation to anthropometric measurements of participants is depicted in table 4.19. An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare the EPDS scores to maternal anthropometric measurements. There was no statistically significant difference between the EPDS and anthropometric measurements with the exception of delivery weight. There was a statistically significant difference between EPDS scores and delivery weight in that those participants with higher EPDS scores had a lower weight at delivery than those with low EPDS scores.
Table 4.19: EPDS and anthropometric measurements
Anthropometric measurements EPDS Independent
samples test P-value Lower 50%
(Mean ± SD)
Higher 50%
(Mean ± SD)
Pre-pregnancy weight 66.16 ± 13.71 67.31 ± 15.07 0.57
Height from clinic 1.59 ± 0.05 1.58 ± 0.05 0.39
Height taken by fieldworkers 1.59 ± 0.05 1.58 ± 0.05 0.67
BMI using clinic height 26.02 ± 5.05 26.64 ± 5.68 0.24
BMI using height taken by fieldworkers 26.13 ± 5.30 26.56 ± 5.68 0.17
Delivery weight 77.03 ± 13.90 78.75 ± 12.75 0.02*
Total weight gained 11.72 ± 5.40 10.11 ± 4.48 0.30
*p-value < 0.05
4.6.3 Presence of antenatal depression and participant dietary diversity
The following table shows a comparison between the mean EPDS score and participant DDS category. Study participants with low dietary diversity had the highest mean EPDS score.
Table 4.20: EPDS score versus DDS
DDS N = 172 Mean EPDS ± SD
Low dietary diversity 8% (n = 14) 13.07 ± 7.70
Medium dietary diversity 42% (n = 76) 10.79 ± 6.37
High dietary diversity 48% (n = 82) 10.73 ± 6.11
4.6.4 Presence of antenatal depression and participant household food security status
The frequency of participants that belong to the lower 50% EPDS category and those who belong to the higher 50% EPDS according to their HFIAS score classification is shown in table 4.21. The majority of participants with a low EPDS score were food secure whilst those at risk for food insecurity or were food insecure had higher EPDS scores. Levene’s test for equality of variances and an independent samples t-test was conducted to compare the EPDS scores to the HFIAS scores. The Levene’s test produced a p-value > 0.05 for HFIAS. It can therefore be concluded that the variances in EPDS scores between the HFIAS scores are equal. The independent samples t- test results however, indicate that there is no significant difference between the EPDS scores and the HFIAS scores (p- value > 0.05).
Table 4.21: EPDS score versus HFIAS