How it's calculated
10 questions covering mood, anxiety, coping, and self-harm thoughts over the past 7 days, each scored 0 (least symptomatic) to 3 (most symptomatic), summed for a total of 0-30.
Score interpretation
| Total score | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| 0–9 | Low likelihood of depression |
| 10–12 | Borderline — monitor and consider follow-up |
| ≥13 | Probable depression — further clinical assessment recommended |
Regardless of total score, any response above 0 on item 10 (thoughts of self-harm) needs prompt further assessment.
Clinical use
- Designed and validated for use in the postnatal period, but also commonly used antenatally — sometimes called the Edinburgh Depression Scale in that context.
- A screening tool, not a diagnostic instrument — a high score should prompt clinical assessment for a formal depression diagnosis, not be treated as one itself.
- Item 10 (self-harm thoughts) should always be reviewed individually, since a low total score can still coexist with a positive response on this item.
Frequently asked questions
What is the EPDS used for?
The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale screens for depressive symptoms in the postnatal (and often antenatal) period using 10 self-reported questions about the past 7 days.
What EPDS score suggests depression?
A total score of 13 or more is the original validation cutoff suggesting probable depression warranting further clinical assessment; a score of 10-12 is a borderline range worth monitoring.
What if item 10 (self-harm) is positive but the total score is low?
Any response above "never" on item 10 requires prompt further assessment regardless of the total score — a low overall score does not override a positive response on the self-harm item.
References
- Cox JL, Holden JM, Sagovsky R. Detection of postnatal depression: development of the 10-item Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Br J Psychiatry. 1987;150:782-786.
- Gibson J, et al. A systematic review of studies validating the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale in antepartum and postpartum women. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2009;119:350-364.