BMC Public Health 2006, 6:211 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/6/211 only compare respondents with non-respondents on a few variables (age, EPDS score etc). As such, the ability to generalise from these results is limited. Opinion on the utility of screening for PND remains mixed. Bodies such as the American College of Obstetri- cians and Gynaecologists fully endorse the routine screen- ing of postpartum women with the EPDS [25] and health bodies in other countries have adopted similar policies after due weighing of the evidence. By contrast, the United Kingdom government considers that universal screening with the EPDS does not yet meet its statutory criteria [26]. Necessarily absent from the deliberations leading to all of these policy positions were published, quantitative data on acceptability levels (virtually none were available in 2002). Yet without such data, any opinion on whether to screen or not cannot be fully informed. We hope that this study will stimulate other researchers in other countries to add to the literature on the acceptability of screening tools for PND in general, not just the EPDS. Finally, the aim of a screening tool should not be to try and make quick diagnoses but only to better define a higher prevalence group at whom formal diagnostic pro- cedures can be more efficiently targeted (e.g. a biopsy fol- lowing a mammogram in relation to breast cancer or a formal psychiatric interview following the EPDS in the case of postnatal depression). Our current results suggest that in communities where universal postnatal screening is implemented, the EPDS has good acceptability as a tool with which to better define such a higher prevalence group. Conclusion The EPDS has high rates of acceptability to respondents in this survey and this is true for both depressed and non- depressed women. Thus, the presence of the condition that is being screened for does not itself appear to impact strongly on screening acceptance in the target population. Women's views on the desirability of PND screening are largely independent of their personal level of comfort with screening and their level of depressive symptoms. These results may be useful to policy-makers when decid- ing on questions of universal screening implementation for perinatal depression. Competing interests The author(s) declare that they have no competing inter- ests. Authors' contributions JM, JE, BL and AG conceived the study. JM, JE, BL and AG contributed to the design of the survey and the survey form. JE oversaw survey data collection and monitored the consistency of face-to-face interviews. BL collected some of the interview-based data and coded transcripts. JM resolved disagreements between coders. AG designed and executed all data analyses. AG (75%) and BL (25%) wrote a first draft of the manuscript. JM, JE, AG, and BL all edited subsequent drafts for important intellectual con- tent and all authors agreed on the submitted version. Acknowledgements We thank the Nurses and women who took part in this study form the shires of Banyule, Whitehorse, Darebin, Nillumbik and Whittlesea. Psycho- logical assessment of the diagnosed women was supported by the Parent Infant Research Institute and in part by a research grant from Pfizer Aus- tralia. Karen Corrie, Melina Ramp and Chris Holt had input into the design of the survey form. Chris Holt distributed and collated survey forms, coded transcripts and entered data. References 1. Gale S, Harlow BL: Postpartum mood disorders: a review of clinical and epidemiological factors. J Psychosom Obst Gynecol 2003, 24:257-266. 2. Josefsson A: Postpartum depression – epidemiological and biological aspects. Nord J Psychiat 2003, 57:395-396. 3. Cox J, Holden J: Perinatal Mental Health. A Guide to the Edinburgh Post- natal Depression Scale (EPDS) London: Gaskell; 2003. 4. Milgrom J, Martin PR, Negri LM: Treating Postnatal Depression. A Psycho- logical Approach for Health Care Practitioners Chichester: Wiley; 1999. 5. Vos T, Corry J, Haby MM, Carter R, Andrews G: Cost-effective- ness of cognitive-behavioural therapy and drug interventions for major depression. Aust NZ J Psychiat 2005, 39:683-692. 6. Valenstein M, Sandeep V, Zeber JE, Boehm K, Buttar A: The cost- utility of screening for depression in primary care. Ann Int Med 2001, 134:345-360. 7. Cox J, Holden J, Sagovsky R: Detection of postnatal depression: development of a 10 item postnatal depression scale. Brit J Psychiat 1987, 150:782-786. 8. Cartoux M, Meda N, Van de Perre P, Newell ML, de Vincenzi I, Dabis F, the Ghent International Working Group on Mother-to-child Trans- mission of HIV: AIDS 1998, 12:2489-2493. 9. Crang-Svalenius E, Dykes A, Jorgensen C: Maternal serum screen- ing for Down syndrome – opinions on acceptance form Swedish women. Scand J Car Sci 2003, 17:30-34. 10. Liang W, Lawrence F, Burnett CB, Hwang Y, Freedman M, Trock BJ, Mandelblatt JS, Lippman ME: Acceptability of diagnostic tests for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2003, 79:199-206. 11. Pimenta JM, Catchpole M, Rogers PA, Perkins E, Jackson N, Carlisle C, Randall S, Hopwood J, Hewitt G, Underhill G, Mallinson H, McLean L, Gleave T, Tobin J, Harindra V, Ghosh A: Opportunistic screen- ing for genital chlamydial infection. 1: Acceptability of urine testing in primary and secondary healthcare settings. Sex Trans Inf 2005, 79:16-21. 12. Murray L, Carothers AD: The validation of the Edinburgh Post- natal Depression Scale on a community sample. Brit J Psychiat 1990, 157:288-290. 13. Holden JM: Using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale in clinical practice. In Perinatal Psychiatry: Uses and Abuses of the EPDS Edited by: Cox J. London: Gaskell; 1990. 14. Shakespeare J, Blake F, Garcia J: A qualitative study of the accept- ability of routine screening of postnatal depression using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Brit J Gen Practice 2003, 53:614-619. 15. Buist A, Condon J, Brooks J, Speelman C, Milgrom J, Hayes B, Ellwood D, Barnett B, Kowalenko N, Matthey S, Austin M, Bilszta J: Accept- ability of routine screening for postnatal depression: An Aus- tralia-wide study. J Affect Disorders 2006, 93:233-237. 16. American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th edition. Washington; 1994. 17. Leverton TJ, Elliott SA: Is the EPDS a magic wand?: 1. A com- parison of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale and health visitor report as predictors of diagnosis on the Present State Examination. J Rep Inf Psychol 2000, 18:279-296. Page 7 of 8 (page number not for citation purposes)