Anna Mh Price1,2, Hannah E Bryson1, Fiona Mensah2,3, Lynn Kemp4, Lara Bishop5, Sharon Goldfeld1,2. 1. Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, the Centre for Community Child Health, The Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 2. The Department of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 3. Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics Unit, The Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 4. Translational Research and Social Innovation, Western Sydney University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 5. Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Abstract
AIM: Australian data on the prevalence and distribution of antenatal risk factors are scarce. This study aimed to investigate (i) the feasibility and acceptability of an antenatal risk factor survey collected in public settings and (ii) whether the survey risk factors co-occur with more sensitive risk factors that are privately asked by clinicians. METHODS: Design and setting: study-designed survey linked with clinician-collected risk factors. PARTICIPANTS: pregnant women attending antenatal clinics at two Victorian hospitals. MEASURES: (i) study-designed survey: young pregnancy, no support, poor/fair/good general health, anxious mood, not finishing high school, no income, long-term illness, living without another adult, not employed, never had a job and proxy poverty measures; (ii) Clinician-collected data: smoking, alcohol/marijuana/drug use, domestic violence, social issues, history of mental health problems and depression symptoms. ANALYSES: (i) feasibility and acceptability were assessed through survey completion. Each item was assessed for whether they discriminated risk; dichotomised into risk versus no risk; with a total count calculated. (ii) Co-occurrence was assessed by examining how the risk factor count agreed with clinician-collected items. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-six of 186 (89%) eligible women completed the survey; 139 of 166 (84%) consented to linking clinician-collected data. The high response and zero missing data demonstrated feasibility and acceptability. Of women with linked data, 92 of 139 (66%) had ≥1 survey risk factor and 30 of 139 (22%) had ≥3; 36 of 139 (26%) had at least one co-occurring clinician-collected risk factor. CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides a simple, rapid approach to gathering antenatal risk data publicly. It may be a helpful addition to clinicians' standard history collection.
AIM: Australian data on the prevalence and distribution of antenatal risk factors are scarce. This study aimed to investigate (i) the feasibility and acceptability of an antenatal risk factor survey collected in public settings and (ii) whether the survey risk factors co-occur with more sensitive risk factors that are privately asked by clinicians. METHODS: Design and setting: study-designed survey linked with clinician-collected risk factors. PARTICIPANTS: pregnant women attending antenatal clinics at two Victorian hospitals. MEASURES: (i) study-designed survey: young pregnancy, no support, poor/fair/good general health, anxious mood, not finishing high school, no income, long-term illness, living without another adult, not employed, never had a job and proxy poverty measures; (ii) Clinician-collected data: smoking, alcohol/marijuana/drug use, domestic violence, social issues, history of mental health problems and depression symptoms. ANALYSES: (i) feasibility and acceptability were assessed through survey completion. Each item was assessed for whether they discriminated risk; dichotomised into risk versus no risk; with a total count calculated. (ii) Co-occurrence was assessed by examining how the risk factor count agreed with clinician-collected items. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-six of 186 (89%) eligible women completed the survey; 139 of 166 (84%) consented to linking clinician-collected data. The high response and zero missing data demonstrated feasibility and acceptability. Of women with linked data, 92 of 139 (66%) had ≥1 survey risk factor and 30 of 139 (22%) had ≥3; 36 of 139 (26%) had at least one co-occurring clinician-collected risk factor. CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides a simple, rapid approach to gathering antenatal risk data publicly. It may be a helpful addition to clinicians' standard history collection.
Authors: Hannah Bryson; Susan Perlen; Anna Price; Fiona Mensah; Lisa Gold; Penelope Dakin; Sharon Goldfeld Journal: Arch Womens Ment Health Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 4.405
Authors: Lynn Kemp; Tracey Bruce; Emma L Elcombe; Fiona Byrne; Sheryl A Scharkie; Susan M Perlen; Sharon R Goldfeld Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-10-03 Impact factor: 3.752