Sarira El-Den1, Claire L O'Reilly2, Timothy F Chen2. 1. Faculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, 2006 NSW, Australia. Electronic address: sarira.el-den@sydney.edu.au. 2. Faculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, 2006 NSW, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Perinatal depression (PND) affects approximately 10-15% of women, worldwide. PND screening, using screening tools, has been undertaken by a broad range of healthcare professionals in different settings. Our objective was to explore the acceptability of PND screening and how acceptability was being assessed. METHODS: A systematic literature review of studies that explored the acceptability of PND screening was carried out throughout MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Maternity and Infant Care and Joanna Briggs Institute databases. RESULTS: Twenty-eight out of twenty-nine publications reported PND screening to be acceptable to most participants. A wide range of terms, questions and statements was used to infer, assess or report on acceptability. There was no uniform, psychometrically tested tool used to measure acceptability across the studies. LIMITATIONS: Broad inclusion criteria and methodological differences limited comparisons, but are overcome by the comprehensiveness of the data and the lack of uniformity across studies. CONCLUSIONS: Even though PND screening appears acceptable, it is difficult to draw conclusions about PND screening acceptability as studies used different methods to infer, assess or report on acceptability. The lack of a uniform, psychometrically tested tool to measure acceptability is not unique to PND. Nonetheless, the majority of perinatal women and healthcare professionals reported positive attitudes towards PND screening using different tools in different settings, indicating that it may be the responsibility of all healthcare professionals who come into contact with perinatal women.
BACKGROUND: Perinatal depression (PND) affects approximately 10-15% of women, worldwide. PND screening, using screening tools, has been undertaken by a broad range of healthcare professionals in different settings. Our objective was to explore the acceptability of PND screening and how acceptability was being assessed. METHODS: A systematic literature review of studies that explored the acceptability of PND screening was carried out throughout MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Maternity and Infant Care and Joanna Briggs Institute databases. RESULTS: Twenty-eight out of twenty-nine publications reported PND screening to be acceptable to most participants. A wide range of terms, questions and statements was used to infer, assess or report on acceptability. There was no uniform, psychometrically tested tool used to measure acceptability across the studies. LIMITATIONS: Broad inclusion criteria and methodological differences limited comparisons, but are overcome by the comprehensiveness of the data and the lack of uniformity across studies. CONCLUSIONS: Even though PND screening appears acceptable, it is difficult to draw conclusions about PND screening acceptability as studies used different methods to infer, assess or report on acceptability. The lack of a uniform, psychometrically tested tool to measure acceptability is not unique to PND. Nonetheless, the majority of perinatal women and healthcare professionals reported positive attitudes towards PND screening using different tools in different settings, indicating that it may be the responsibility of all healthcare professionals who come into contact with perinatal women.
Authors: Emma Carlin; Sarah J Blondell; Yvonne Cadet-James; Sandra Campbell; Melissa Williams; Catherine Engelke; Des Taverner; Rhonda Marriott; Karen Edmonds; David Atkinson; Julia V Marley Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Sarah Lawrence; Dave Namusanya; Andrew Hamuza; Cornelius Huwa; Dennis Chasweka; Maureen Kelley; Sassy Molyneux; Wieger Voskuijl; Donna M Denno; Nicola Desmond Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-02-04 Impact factor: 3.240