Tanya Connell1, Bryanne Barnett2, Donna Waters3. 1. Sydney Nursing School, University of Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia. Electronic address: tanya_connell@bigpond.com. 2. School of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, NSW, Australia. 3. Sydney Nursing School, University of Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Abstract
PROBLEM: The evidence of benefit for antenatal psychosocial assessment and depression screening has been sufficient to lead the implementation of screening in public hospitals in all states of Australia. Details of the implementation of perinatal screening in private obstetric settings is less well known. AIM: As any successful implementation relies on the identification of local barriers, we aimed to determine what perceived or actual barriers may exist for the implementation of evidence-based perinatal screening interventions in private obstetric care, and specifically within small private hospitals. METHOD: The integrative literature review method offers a structured systematic approach to organise, synthesize and critique research from a range of sources. This method was used to determine what barriers have been identified in implementing psychosocial assessment and depression screening with women receiving obstetric care in private hospital settings. FINDINGS: The integrative review findings suggest that barriers to implementing psychosocial screening in the private sector are similar to those experienced in the public sector but may also be influenced by the corporate focus of private services. Barriers were identified among health professionals, within the personal and psychosocial context of women and their families, and at provider or system level. CONCLUSION: Once identified, barriers can be systematically addressed to enhance the success of implementing psychosocial and depression screening in the private sector. Screening is likely to be influenced by the business models and operating systems of private service providers. Health professionals working within this environment need more support to conduct perinatal assessment within this context.
PROBLEM: The evidence of benefit for antenatal psychosocial assessment and depression screening has been sufficient to lead the implementation of screening in public hospitals in all states of Australia. Details of the implementation of perinatal screening in private obstetric settings is less well known. AIM: As any successful implementation relies on the identification of local barriers, we aimed to determine what perceived or actual barriers may exist for the implementation of evidence-based perinatal screening interventions in private obstetric care, and specifically within small private hospitals. METHOD: The integrative literature review method offers a structured systematic approach to organise, synthesize and critique research from a range of sources. This method was used to determine what barriers have been identified in implementing psychosocial assessment and depression screening with women receiving obstetric care in private hospital settings. FINDINGS: The integrative review findings suggest that barriers to implementing psychosocial screening in the private sector are similar to those experienced in the public sector but may also be influenced by the corporate focus of private services. Barriers were identified among health professionals, within the personal and psychosocial context of women and their families, and at provider or system level. CONCLUSION: Once identified, barriers can be systematically addressed to enhance the success of implementing psychosocial and depression screening in the private sector. Screening is likely to be influenced by the business models and operating systems of private service providers. Health professionals working within this environment need more support to conduct perinatal assessment within this context.
Authors: Heidi Preis; Petar M Djurić; Marzieh Ajirak; Tong Chen; Vibha Mane; David J Garry; Cassandra Heiselman; Joseph Chappelle; Marci Lobel Journal: Arch Womens Ment Health Date: 2022-08-20 Impact factor: 4.405
Authors: V Schmied; N Reilly; E Black; D Kingston; K Talcevska; V Mule; M-P Austin Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2020-08-07 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Ajeng J Puspitasari; Dagoberto Heredia; Elise Weber; Hannah K Betcher; Brandon J Coombes; Ellen M Brodrick; Susan M Skinner; Angie L Tomlinson; Shana S Salik; Summer V Allen; Jason S O'Grady; Emily K Johnson; Tayler M L'amoureux; Katherine M Moore Journal: J Prim Care Community Health Date: 2021 Jan-Dec
Authors: Kelly Amuli; Kim Decabooter; Florence Talrich; Anne Renders; Katrien Beeckman Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-08-06 Impact factor: 3.295