A recent paper by Barclay and Kent (1998) raised various issues with regards to motherhood and recent immigration.They expressed reservations with conceptualising extreme misery in new mothers as depression, and with screening for postnatal distress in women from non-English-speaking backgrounds (NESB).They argued that a common self-report measure for postnatal distress screening, the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), was flawed.They also argued that the concept of postnatal depression implies a medical aetiology and, thus, fails to recognise the socio-cultural aspects experienced by NESB women. We address these issues, by demonstrating that the EPDS is not flawed, and by arguing that screening for postpartum distress results in more NESB women being identified and, consequently, offered a service, than if such screening does not occur. We also disagree with the view that the term 'postnatal depression' necessarily implies any aetiology, and that work by our unit, as well as others around the world, indicates that the psychosocial and cultural aspects related to distress in new immigrant mothers is being recognised and acted upon.

[No Keywords available]

puerperal depression female standard psychological rating scale Note reproducibility Emigration and Immigration Reproducibility of Results pregnancy Psychiatric Status Rating Scales mass screening ethnology methodology Depression, Postpartum attitude to health human Humans migration