Emma Carlin1,2, Kimberley H Seear3, Katherine Ferrari4, Erica Spry3,4, David Atkinson3, Julia V Marley3,4. 1. The Rural Clinical School of Western Australia, The University of Western Australia, Broome, WA, Australia. emma.carlin@rcswa.edu.au. 2. Kimberley Aboriginal Medical Services, Broome, WA, Australia. emma.carlin@rcswa.edu.au. 3. The Rural Clinical School of Western Australia, The University of Western Australia, Broome, WA, Australia. 4. Kimberley Aboriginal Medical Services, Broome, WA, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe the psychosocial protective and risk factors for perinatal mental health identified in a sample of Aboriginal women's Kimberley Mum's Mood Scale (KMMS) assessments and explore the role of these factors in their screening assessment and diagnostic outcome. METHODS: We used a mixed methods approach to retrospectively analyse a cross-sectional study dataset of 91 completed KMMS assessments. This included: categorising the clinical notes from the KMMS psychosocial yarn into 'risk' and 'protective' factors and describing these categories, describing the number and type of risk and protective factors associated with different KMMS risk assessment categories (no, low, medium, high), and exploring relationships between these risk and protective factors and diagnosis of perinatal depression and/or anxiety. RESULTS: Protective factors were recorded for the vast majority of the women; the most prominent was positive family relationships. When protective and risk factors were stratified by KMMS risk category, women in the higher risk group less commonly had specific protective factors (11-33% high vs 61-100% no risk) and more commonly had risk factors (22-67% high vs 6-28% no risk) than women with lower KMMS assessed risk. The average number of protective factors decreased with increasing KMMS risk category (4.9 ± 1.1 to 1.6 ± 1.3), with the inverse pattern for risk factors (1.1 ± 1.1 to 3.8 ± 1.0). Having protective factors also appeared to reduce the risk of developing clinical depression or anxiety. CONCLUSION: Assessing protective factors in mental health screening for perinatal Aboriginal women increases the effectiveness of screening and provides a foundation for the delivery of local structured psychosocial care.
PURPOSE: To describe the psychosocial protective and risk factors for perinatal mental health identified in a sample of Aboriginal women's Kimberley Mum's Mood Scale (KMMS) assessments and explore the role of these factors in their screening assessment and diagnostic outcome. METHODS: We used a mixed methods approach to retrospectively analyse a cross-sectional study dataset of 91 completed KMMS assessments. This included: categorising the clinical notes from the KMMS psychosocial yarn into 'risk' and 'protective' factors and describing these categories, describing the number and type of risk and protective factors associated with different KMMS risk assessment categories (no, low, medium, high), and exploring relationships between these risk and protective factors and diagnosis of perinatal depression and/or anxiety. RESULTS: Protective factors were recorded for the vast majority of the women; the most prominent was positive family relationships. When protective and risk factors were stratified by KMMS risk category, women in the higher risk group less commonly had specific protective factors (11-33% high vs 61-100% no risk) and more commonly had risk factors (22-67% high vs 6-28% no risk) than women with lower KMMS assessed risk. The average number of protective factors decreased with increasing KMMS risk category (4.9 ± 1.1 to 1.6 ± 1.3), with the inverse pattern for risk factors (1.1 ± 1.1 to 3.8 ± 1.0). Having protective factors also appeared to reduce the risk of developing clinical depression or anxiety. CONCLUSION: Assessing protective factors in mental health screening for perinatal Aboriginal women increases the effectiveness of screening and provides a foundation for the delivery of local structured psychosocial care.
Authors: Alan Stein; Rebecca M Pearson; Sherryl H Goodman; Elizabeth Rapa; Atif Rahman; Meaghan McCallum; Louise M Howard; Carmine M Pariante Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-11-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Julia V Marley; Jayne Kotz; Catherine Engelke; Melissa Williams; Donna Stephen; Sudha Coutinho; Stephanie K Trust Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-01-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Emma Carlin; Zaccariah Cox; Kristen Orazi; Kate L Derry; Pat Dudgeon Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-03 Impact factor: 3.390