BACKGROUND: Psychological distress is common in the antenatal period. In England, psychological distress is classified as mild, moderate or severe but only those who suffer severe psychological distress are referred to the specialist mental health services. Those who suffer mild to moderate psychological distress are managed by the primary care services. However, little is know about the psychosocial experiences of pregnant women who suffer from mild-moderate psychological distress. OBJECTIVE: This study explored the experiences of pregnant women who self-reported mild to moderate psychological distress during antenatal care. DESIGN: A qualitative study. Data were collected using digitally recorded, face-to-face, semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using framework analysis. SETTING: A large teaching maternity hospital in North West England. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four pregnant women who self-reported mild to moderate psychological distress to their midwife during routine antenatal care. RESULTS: Three main themes emerged: the causes of, impact of, and ways of controlling self-reported mild to moderate psychological distress. A range of experiences caused psychological distress including past life and childbearing experiences, and current pregnancy concerns. Mild to moderate psychological distress took over the lives of these pregnant women. The strategies used to control mild to moderate psychological distress included both positive and negative coping elements. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological distress that is categorised as mild to moderate can be extremely debilitating for pregnant women. Identification of these women in clinical practice is crucial so that effective interventions can be targeted appropriately. Screening criteria that has the efficacy to identify depression and anxiety is needed. We recommend that a multidisciplinary approach to the management of care is developed to address the range of experiences that pregnant women who suffer mild to moderate prenatal psychological distress may have.
BACKGROUND: Psychological distress is common in the antenatal period. In England, psychological distress is classified as mild, moderate or severe but only those who suffer severe psychological distress are referred to the specialist mental health services. Those who suffer mild to moderate psychological distress are managed by the primary care services. However, little is know about the psychosocial experiences of pregnant women who suffer from mild-moderate psychological distress. OBJECTIVE: This study explored the experiences of pregnant women who self-reported mild to moderate psychological distress during antenatal care. DESIGN: A qualitative study. Data were collected using digitally recorded, face-to-face, semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using framework analysis. SETTING: A large teaching maternity hospital in North West England. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four pregnant women who self-reported mild to moderate psychological distress to their midwife during routine antenatal care. RESULTS: Three main themes emerged: the causes of, impact of, and ways of controlling self-reported mild to moderate psychological distress. A range of experiences caused psychological distress including past life and childbearing experiences, and current pregnancy concerns. Mild to moderate psychological distress took over the lives of these pregnant women. The strategies used to control mild to moderate psychological distress included both positive and negative coping elements. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological distress that is categorised as mild to moderate can be extremely debilitating for pregnant women. Identification of these women in clinical practice is crucial so that effective interventions can be targeted appropriately. Screening criteria that has the efficacy to identify depression and anxiety is needed. We recommend that a multidisciplinary approach to the management of care is developed to address the range of experiences that pregnant women who suffer mild to moderate prenatal psychological distress may have.
Authors: Katherine M McNitt; Emily E Hohman; Daniel E Rivera; Penghong Guo; Abigail M Pauley; Alison D Gernand; Danielle Symons Downs; Jennifer S Savage Journal: Nutrients Date: 2022-06-01 Impact factor: 6.706
Authors: Rhonda C Boyd; Alexander M Scharko; Joanna C M Cole; Chavis A Patterson; Tami D Benton; Thomas J Power Journal: J Clin Psychol Med Settings Date: 2016-06
Authors: Esther I Feijen-de Jong; Danielle E M C Jansen; Frank Baarveld; Evelien Spelten; François Schellevis; Sijmen A Reijneveld Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Debra Jeffery; Sarah Clement; Elizabeth Corker; Louise M Howard; Joanna Murray; Graham Thornicroft Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2013-04-20 Impact factor: 3.630