Search

Background: Studies examining psychosocial and depression assessment programs in maternity settings have not adequately considered the context in which psychosocial assessment occurs or how broader components of integrated care, including clinician decision-making aids, may optimise program delivery and its cost-effectiveness. There is also limited evidence relating to the diagnostic accuracy of symptom-based screening measures used in this context. The Perinatal Integrated Psychosocial Assessment (PIPA) Project was developed to address these knowledge gaps. The primary aims of the PIPA Project are to examine the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of two alternative models of integrated psychosocial care during pregnancy: 'care as usual' (the SAFE START model) and an alternative model (the PIPA model). The acceptability and perceived benefit of each model of care from the perspective of both pregnant women and their healthcare providers will also be assessed. Our secondary aim is to examine the psychometric properties of a number of symptom-based screening tools for depression and anxiety when used in pregnancy.Methods: This is a comparative-effectiveness study comparing 'care as usual' to an alternative model sequentially over two 12-month periods. Data will be collected from women at Time 1 (initial antenatal psychosocial assessment), Time 2 (2-weeks after Time 1) and from clinicians at Time 3 for each condition. Primary aims will be evaluated using a between-groups design, and the secondary aim using a within group design.Discussion: The PIPA Project will provide evidence relating to the clinical- and cost- effectiveness of psychosocial assessment integrated with electronic clinician decision making prompts, and referral options that are tailored to the woman's psychosocial risk, in the maternity care setting. It will also address research recommendations from the Australian (2011) and NICE (2015) Clinical Practice Guidelines.Trial Registration: ACTRN12617000932369. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Retrospective studies suggest that maternal exposure to a severe stressor during pregnancy increases the fetus' risk for a variety of disorders in adulthood. Animal studies testing the fetal programming hypothesis find that maternal glucocorticoids pass through the placenta and alter fetal brain development, particularly the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. However, there are no prospective studies of pregnant women exposed to a sudden-onset independent stressor that elucidate the biopsychosocial mechanisms responsible for the wide variety of consequences of prenatal stress seen in human offspring. The aim of the QF2011 Queensland Flood Study is to fill this gap, and to test the buffering effects of Midwifery Group Practice, a form of continuity of maternity care. Methods/design: In January 2011 Queensland, Australia had its worst flooding in 30 years. Simultaneously, researchers in Brisbane were collecting psychosocial data on pregnant women for a randomized control trial (the M@NGO Trial) comparing Midwifery Group Practice to standard care. We invited these and other pregnant women to participate in a prospective, longitudinal study of the effects of prenatal maternal stress from the floods on maternal, perinatal and early childhood outcomes. Data collection included assessment of objective hardship and subjective distress from the floods at recruitment and again 12 months post-flood. Biological samples included maternal bloods at 36 weeks pregnancy, umbilical cord, cord blood, and placental tissues at birth. Questionnaires assessing maternal and child outcomes were sent to women at 6 weeks and 6 months postpartum. The protocol includes assessments at 16 months, 2½ and 4 years. Outcomes include maternal psychopathology, and the child's cognitive, behavioral, motor and physical development. Additional biological samples include maternal and child DNA, as well as child testosterone, diurnal and reactive cortisol. Discussion: This prenatal stress study is the first of its kind, and will fill important gaps in the literature. Analyses will determine the extent to which flood exposure influences the maternal biological stress response which may then affect the maternal-placental-fetal axis at the biological, biochemical, and molecular levels, altering fetal development and influencing outcomes in the offspring. The role of Midwifery Group Practice in moderating effects of maternal stress will be tested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Psychosocial assessment and depression screening is now recommended for all women who are pregnant or have recently given birth in Australia. Existing studies which have examined the extent of participation by women in such population-based programs have been primarily concerned with depression screening rather than a more comprehensive examination of psychosocial assessment, and have not been sufficiently inclusive of the 30% of women whose maternity care is provided in the private sector. Whether there are disparities in equity of access to perinatal psychosocial assessment is also unknown. Methods: A sub-sample of women (N = 1804) drawn from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health participated in the study. Overall rates of assessment across five psychosocial domains (current emotional health; mental health history; current level of support; current drug or alcohol use; experience of domestic violence or abuse), as well as receipt of mental health promotion information, were examined. Log binomial regression was performed to investigate whether there were socio-demographic or health system inequalities among women who are and are not assessed across each domain. Results: Two-thirds of women (66.8%) reported being asked about their current emotional health in the antenatal period, increasing to 75.6% of women in the postnatal period. Rates decreased markedly for reported assessment of mental health history (52.9% during pregnancy and 41.2% postnatally). Women were least likely to be asked about their experience of domestic violence or abuse in both the antenatal and postnatal periods (in total, 35.7% and 31.8%, respectively). In terms of equity of access to psychosocial assessment, women who gave birth in the public hospital sector were more likely to report being assessed across all domains of assessment in the antenatal period, compared with women who gave birth in the private sector, after adjusting for other significant covariates. State of residence was associated with reported rates of assessment across all domains in both the antenatal and postnatal periods. Women from non-English speaking backgrounds and women with more than one child were less likely to be assessed across various domains. Conclusion: This study provides an important insight into the reported overall penetration of and access to perinatal psychosocial assessment among a sample of women in Australia. Opportunities to minimise the current shortfall in assessment rates, particularly in the private sector, and for ongoing monitoring of assessment activity at a national level are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]