Search

Although perinatal universal depression and psychosocial assessment is recommended in Australia, its clinical performance and cost-effectiveness remain uncertain. To compare the performance and cost-effectiveness of two models of psychosocial assessment: Usual-Care and Perinatal Integrated Psychosocial Assessment (PIPA). Women attending their first antenatal visit were prospectively recruited to this cohort study. Endorsement of significant depressive symptoms or psychosocial risk generated an 'at-risk' flag identifying those needing referral to the Triage Committee. Based on its detailed algorithm, a higher threshold of risk was required to trigger the 'at-risk' flag for PIPA than for Usual-Care. Each model's performance was evaluated using the midwife's agreement with the 'at-risk' flag as the reference standard. Cost-effectiveness was limited to the identification of True Positive and False Positive cases. Staffing costs associated with administering each screening model were quantified using a bottom-up time-in-motion approach. Both models performed well at identifying 'at-risk' women (sensitivity: Usual-Care 0.82 versus PIPA 0.78). However, the PIPA model was more effective at eliminating False Positives and correctly identifying 'at-risk' women (Positive Predictive Value: PIPA 0.69 versus Usual Care 0.41). PIPA was associated with small incremental savings for both True Positives detected and False Positives averted. Overall PIPA performed better than Usual-Care as a psychosocial screening model and was a cost-saving and relatively effective approach for detecting True Positives and averting False Positives. These initial findings warrant evaluation of longer-term costs and outcomes of women identified by the models as 'at-risk' and 'not at-risk' of perinatal psychosocial morbidity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While routine psychosocial assessment is acceptable to most pregnant women, some women will not fully disclose psychosocial concerns to their clinician. To assess the impact of psychosocial risk, current symptoms and mode of assessment on women's honesty of disclosure at psychosocial assessment. Logistic regression was used to examine associations between disclosure and a range of psychosocial characteristics in women who were 'always honest' and 'not always honest'. Mixed ANOVAs were used to test the influence of mode of assessment and honesty on scores on a repeated measure of psychosocial risk. 10.8% (N = 193 of 1788) of women did not fully disclose at psychosocial assessment. Non-disclosure was associated with a mental health history (aOR = 1.78, 95%CI: 1.18–2.67, p < 0.01) and lack of social and partner support (aOR = 1.74, 95%CI: 1.16–2.62, p < 0.05; aOR = 2.08, 95%CI: 1.11–3.90, p < 0.05, respectively). Those reporting not always being honest at face to face assessment showed a greater increase in psychosocial risk score when the assessment was repeated online via self-report, compared to women who were always honest. A history of mental health issues and lack of social and partner support are associated with reduced disclosure at face to face assessment. Online self-report assessment may promote greater disclosure, however this should always be conducted in the context of clinician feedback. Greater psychosocial vulnerability is associated with a lower likelihood of full disclosure. Preliminary findings relating to mode of assessment warrant further exploration within a clinical context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While comprehensive psychosocial assessment is recommended as part of routine maternity care, unless women engage and disclose, psychosocial risk will not be identified or referred in a timely manner. We need to better understand and where possible overcome the barriers to disclosure if we are to reduce mental health morbidity and complex psychosocial adversity. To assess pregnant women's attitude to, and reasons for non-disclosure at, comprehensive psychosocial assessment with their midwife. Data from 1796 pregnant women were analysed using a mixed method approach. After ascertaining women's comfort with, attitude to, and non-disclosure at psychosocial screening, thematic analysis was used to understand the reasons underpinning non-disclosure. 99% of participants were comfortable with the assessment, however 11.1% (N = 193) reported some level of nondisclosure. Key themes for non-disclosure included (1) Normalising and negative self-perception, (2) Fear of negative perceptions from others, (3) Lack of trust of midwife, (4) Differing expectation of appointment and (5) Mode of assessment and time issues. Factors associated with high comfort and disclosure levels in this sample include an experienced and skilled midwifery workforce at the study site and a relatively advantaged and mental health literate sample. Proper implementation of psychosocial assessment policy; setting clear expectations for women and, for more vulnerable women, extending assessment time, modifying mode of assessment, and offering continuity of midwifery care will help build rapport, improve disclosure, and increase the chance of early identification and intervention. This study informs approaches to improving comprehensive psychosocial assessment in the maternity setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical practice guidelines recommend that women be screened for depression as a routine component of maternity care however there is ongoing debate about the benefits of depression screening programs in this context. This narrative review identifies and describes the clinical effectiveness of perinatal depression screening programs in relation to one or more of the following interrelated domains: referral for additional mental health support or treatment; engagement with mental health support or treatment options; and, maternal mental health or parenting outcomes. English-language studies, published up to July 2017, were identified and their methodological quality was assessed. RCTs and non-RCTs were included. Overall, the majority of the fourteen studies identified showed that participation in a perinatal depression screening program increases referral rates and service use, and is associated with more optimal emotional health outcomes. One of four available studies demonstrated an improvement in parenting outcomes as a result of participation in an integrated postnatal depression screening program. This small but important body of work is integral to the continuing debate over the merits of screening for depression in the perinatal period. Current evidence favours the overall benefits of perinatal depression screening programs across the three focus areas of this review. Future research should consider a woman's broader psychosocial context and should address the economic as well as clinical outcomes of these programs. Rigorous evaluation of emerging digital approaches to perinatal depression screening is also required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Despite the prevalence of antenatal depression and the fact that only one-third of pregnant women with depression consider it acceptable to take antidepressants, the effect of untreated depression on neonatal outcomes remains to be addressed thoroughly.Objective: To undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis to understand the effect of untreated depression on neonatal outcomes.Data Sources: We executed our search strategy, with emphasis on its exhaustiveness, in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science. The search was conducted in July, 2015.Study Selection: We included randomized and nonrandomized studies that examined neonatal outcomes in women with depression receiving neither pharmacological nor nonpharmacological treatment compared with women without depression.Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed full-text articles, extracted data, and assessed their quality using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We pooled data using random-effects meta-analyses, quantified heterogeneity using the I2 statistic, and explored it with subgroup analyses by type of assessment of depression, severity, reported conflicts of interest, and study quality.Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were preterm birth before 37 weeks and before 32 weeks, small and large for gestational age, low birth weight, and neonatal intensive care unit admission.Results: Of the 6646 titles initially identified, 23 studies met inclusion criteria, all observational, with a total of 25 663 women. Untreated depression was associated with significantly increased risks of preterm birth (odds ratio [OR], 1.56; 95% CI, 1.25-1.94; 14 studies; I2, 39%) and low birth weight (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.24-3.10; 8 studies; I2, 48%), with a trend toward higher risks for exposure to more severe depression. While the odds of preterm birth more than doubled in studies reporting conflicts of interest (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.70-3.67; 5 studies; I2, 0%), studies not reporting such conflicts showed more moderate results (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.08-1.66; 9 studies; I2, 30%).Conclusions and Relevance: Our results contrast with what is, to our knowledge, the only previous systematic review that examined the question of untreated depression because we found significant risks of 2 key perinatal outcomes, preterm birth and low birth weight. These are important results for pregnant women and clinicians to take into account in the decision-making process around depression treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the influence of efficacy-enhancing experiences on breast-feeding self-efficacy. The study found that those women who observed breast-feeding role models through videotapes or received praise from their partners or their own mothers had significantly higher levels of breast-feeding efficacy than mothers who did not. Additionally, mothers who experienced physical pain or received professional assistance with breast-feeding difficulties had significantly lower level of breast-feeding self-efficacy than those who did not.

Background: Major international guidelines recommend mental health screening during the perinatal period. However, substantial barriers to screening have been reported by pregnant and postpartum women and perinatal care providers. E-screening offers benefits that may address implementation challenges.Objective: The primary objective of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of Web-based mental health e-screening compared with paper-based screening among pregnant women. A secondary objective was to identify factors associated with women's preferences for e-screening and disclosure of mental health concerns.Methods: Pregnant women recruited from community and hospital-based antenatal clinics and hospital-based prenatal classes were computer-randomized to a fully automated Web-based e-screening intervention group or a paper-based control group. Women were eligible if they spoke or read English, were willing to be randomized to e-screening, and were willing to participate in a follow-up diagnostic interview. The intervention group completed the Antenatal Psychosocial Health Assessment and the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale on a tablet computer, while controls completed them on paper. All women completed self-report baseline questions and were telephoned 1 week after randomization by a blinded research assistant for a MINI International Neuropsychiatric Interview. Renker and Tonkin's tool of feasibility and acceptability of computerized screening was used to assess the feasibility and acceptability of e-screening compared with paper-based screening. Intention-to-treat analysis was used. To identify factors associated with preference for e-screening and disclosure, variables associated with each outcome at P<.20 were simultaneously entered into final multivariable models to estimate adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% CIs.Results: Of the 675 eligible women approached, 636 agreed to participate (participation rate 94.2%) and were randomized to the intervention (n=305) or control (n=331) groups. There were no significant baseline differences between groups. More women in the e-screening group strongly or somewhat agreed that they would like to use a tablet for answering questions on emotional health (57.9%, 175/302 vs 37.2%, 121/325) and would prefer using a tablet to paper (46.0%, 139/302 vs 29.2%, 95/325), compared with women in the paper-based screening group. There were no differences between groups in women's disclosure of emotional health concerns (94.1%, 284/302 vs 90.2%, 293/325). Women in the e-screening group consistently reported the features of e-screening more favorably than controls (more private or confidential, less impersonal, less time-consuming). In the multivariable models, being in the e-screening group was significantly associated with preferring e-screening (AOR 2.29, 95% CI 1.66-3.17), while no factors were significantly associated with disclosure.Conclusions: The findings suggest that mental health e-screening is feasible and acceptable to pregnant women.Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01899534; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01899534 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6ntWg1yWb). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]