Literature DB >> 26143952

Preferences for Mental Health Screening Among Pregnant Women: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Dawn E Kingston1, Anne Biringer2, Sheila W McDonald3, Maureen I Heaman4, Gerri C Lasiuk5, Kathy M Hegadoren5, Sarah D McDonald6, Sander Veldhuyzen van Zanten7, Wendy Sword8, Joshua J Kingston5, Karly M Jarema5, Lydia Vermeyden5, Marie-Paule Austin9.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The process of mental health screening can influence disclosure, uptake of referral, and treatment; however, no studies have explored pregnant women's views of methods of mental health screening. The objectives of this study are to determine pregnant women's comfort and preferences regarding mental health screening.
METHODS: Pregnant women were recruited (May-December 2013) for this cross-sectional descriptive survey from prenatal classes and maternity clinics in Alberta, Canada, if they were aged >16 years and spoke/read English. Descriptive statistics summarized acceptability of screening, and multivariable logistic regression identified factors associated with women's comfort with screening methods. Analysis was conducted in January-December 2014.
RESULTS: The participation rate was 92% (N=460/500). Overall, 97.6% of women reported that they were very (74.8%) or somewhat (22.8%) comfortable with mental health screening in pregnancy. Women were most comfortable with completing paper- (>90%) and computer-based (>82%) screening in a clinic or at home, with fewest reporting comfort with telephone-based screening (62%). The majority of women were very/somewhat comfortable with provider-initiated (97.4%) versus self-initiated (68.7%) approaches. Women's ability to be honest with their provider about emotional health was most strongly associated with comfort with each method of screening.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of pregnant women viewed prenatal mental health screening favorably and were comfortable with a variety of screening methods. These findings provide evidence of high acceptability of screening--a key criterion for implementation of universal screening--and suggest that providers can select from a variety of screening methods best suited for their clinical setting.
Copyright © 2015 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26143952     DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.03.026

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Prev Med        ISSN: 0749-3797            Impact factor:   5.043


  12 in total

Review 1.  Parenting after a history of childhood maltreatment: A scoping review and map of evidence in the perinatal period.

Authors:  Catherine Chamberlain; Graham Gee; Stephen Harfield; Sandra Campbell; Sue Brennan; Yvonne Clark; Fiona Mensah; Kerry Arabena; Helen Herrman; Stephanie Brown
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-03-13       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Feasibility and Acceptability of Internet-Based Interpersonal Psychotherapy for Stress, Anxiety, and Depression in Prenatal Women: Thematic Analysis.

Authors:  Katherine S Bright; Scott Stuart; Deborah A Mcneil; Lindsay Murray; Dawn E Kingston
Journal:  JMIR Form Res       Date:  2022-06-10

3.  Referrals to Mental Health Services: Exploring the Referral Process in Genetic Counseling.

Authors:  Mitchell Cunningham; Mary Morreale; Angela Trepanier
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-09-13       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Pregnant Women's Perceptions of Harms and Benefits of Mental Health Screening.

Authors:  Dawn Kingston; Marie-Paule Austin; Sheila W McDonald; Lydia Vermeyden; Maureen Heaman; Kathleen Hegadoren; Gerri Lasiuk; Joshua Kingston; Wendy Sword; Karly Jarema; Sander Veldhuyzen van Zanten; Sarah D McDonald; Anne Biringer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-12-22       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Pregnant Women's Views on the Feasibility and Acceptability of Web-Based Mental Health E-Screening Versus Paper-Based Screening: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Dawn Kingston; Marie-Paule Austin; Sander Veldhuyzen van Zanten; Paula Harvalik; Rebecca Giallo; Sarah D McDonald; Glenda MacQueen; Lydia Vermeyden; Gerri Lasiuk; Wendy Sword; Anne Biringer
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2017-04-07       Impact factor: 5.428

Review 6.  Implementation science in maternity care: a scoping review.

Authors:  Ann Dadich; Annika Piper; Dominiek Coates
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2021-02-04       Impact factor: 7.327

7.  "We do not know how to screen and provide treatment": a qualitative study of barriers and enablers of implementing perinatal depression health services in Ethiopia.

Authors:  Abel Fekadu Dadi; Emma R Miller; Telake Azale; Lillian Mwanri
Journal:  Int J Ment Health Syst       Date:  2021-05-05

8.  A qualitative inquiry on pregnant women's preferences for mental health screening.

Authors:  Hamideh Bayrampour; Deborah A McNeil; Karen Benzies; Charleen Salmon; Karen Gelb; Suzanne Tough
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2017-10-03       Impact factor: 3.007

9.  Pregnant Women's Perceptions of the Risks and Benefits of Disclosure During Web-Based Mental Health E-Screening Versus Paper-Based Screening: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Glenda MacQueen; Lydia Vermeyden; Dawn Kingston; Anne Biringer; Sander Veldhuyzen van Zanten; Rebecca Giallo; Sarah McDonald; Marie-Paule Austin
Journal:  JMIR Ment Health       Date:  2017-10-20

10.  Interpersonal Psychotherapy to Reduce Psychological Distress in Perinatal Women: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Katherine S Bright; Elyse M Charrois; Muhammad Kashif Mughal; Abdul Wajid; Deborah McNeil; Scott Stuart; K Alix Hayden; Dawn Kingston
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-11-13       Impact factor: 3.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.