Zoe Darwin1, Jill Domoney2, Jane Iles3, Florence Bristow4, Jasmine Siew5,6, Vaheshta Sethna6. 1. School of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, United Kingdom. 2. Section of Women's Mental Health, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. 3. Department of Psychology, University of Surrey, Surrey, United Kingdom. 4. Community Perinatal Mental Health Service for Croydon, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom. 5. Department of Experimental Clinical and Health Psychology, Research in Developmental Disorders Lab, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. 6. Department of Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences, Sackler Institute for Translational Neurodevelopment, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
Introduction: Five to 10 percentage of fathers experience perinatal depression and 5-15% experience perinatal anxiety, with rates increasing when mothers are also experiencing perinatal mental health disorders. Perinatal mental illness in either parent contributes to adverse child and family outcomes. While there are increasing calls to assess the mental health of both parents, universal services (e.g., maternity) and specialist perinatal mental health services usually focus on the mother (i.e., the gestational parent). The aim of this review was to identify and synthesize evidence on the performance of mental health screening tools and the acceptability of mental health assessment, specifically in relation to fathers, other co-parents and partners in the perinatal period. Methods: A systematic search was conducted using electronic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Maternity, and Infant Care Database and CINAHL). Articles were eligible if they included expectant or new partners, regardless of the partner's gender or relationship status. Accuracy was determined by comparison of screening tool with diagnostic interview. Acceptability was predominantly assessed through parents' and health professionals' perspectives. Narrative synthesis was applied to all elements of the review, with thematic analysis applied to the acceptability studies. Results: Seven accuracy studies and 20 acceptability studies were included. The review identified that existing evidence focuses on resident fathers and assessing depression in universal settings. All accuracy studies assessed the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale but with highly varied results. Evidence on acceptability in practice is limited to postnatal settings. Amongst both fathers and health professionals, views on assessment are mixed. Identified challenges were categorized at the individual-, practitioner- and service-level. These include: gendered perspectives on mental health; the potential to compromise support offered to mothers; practitioners' knowledge, skills, and confidence; service culture and remit; time pressures; opportunity for contact; and the need for tools, training, supervision and onward referral routes. Conclusion: There is a paucity of published evidence on assessing the mental health of fathers, co-mothers, step-parents and other partners in the perinatal period. Whilst practitioners need to be responsive to mental health needs, further research is needed with stakeholders in a range of practice settings, with attention to ethical and practical considerations, to inform the implementation of evidence-based assessment.
Introduction: Five to 10 percentage of fathers experience perinatal depression and 5-15% experience perinatal anxiety, with rates increasing when mothers are also experiencing perinatal mental health disorders. Perinatal mental illness in either parent contributes to adverse child and family outcomes. While there are increasing calls to assess the mental health of both parents, universal services (e.g., maternity) and specialist perinatal mental health services usually focus on the mother (i.e., the gestational parent). The aim of this review was to identify and synthesize evidence on the performance of mental health screening tools and the acceptability of mental health assessment, specifically in relation to fathers, other co-parents and partners in the perinatal period. Methods: A systematic search was conducted using electronic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Maternity, and Infant Care Database and CINAHL). Articles were eligible if they included expectant or new partners, regardless of the partner's gender or relationship status. Accuracy was determined by comparison of screening tool with diagnostic interview. Acceptability was predominantly assessed through parents' and health professionals' perspectives. Narrative synthesis was applied to all elements of the review, with thematic analysis applied to the acceptability studies. Results: Seven accuracy studies and 20 acceptability studies were included. The review identified that existing evidence focuses on resident fathers and assessing depression in universal settings. All accuracy studies assessed the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale but with highly varied results. Evidence on acceptability in practice is limited to postnatal settings. Amongst both fathers and health professionals, views on assessment are mixed. Identified challenges were categorized at the individual-, practitioner- and service-level. These include: gendered perspectives on mental health; the potential to compromise support offered to mothers; practitioners' knowledge, skills, and confidence; service culture and remit; time pressures; opportunity for contact; and the need for tools, training, supervision and onward referral routes. Conclusion: There is a paucity of published evidence on assessing the mental health of fathers, co-mothers, step-parents and other partners in the perinatal period. Whilst practitioners need to be responsive to mental health needs, further research is needed with stakeholders in a range of practice settings, with attention to ethical and practical considerations, to inform the implementation of evidence-based assessment.
Authors: C Hewitt; S Gilbody; S Brealey; M Paulden; S Palmer; R Mann; J Green; J Morrell; M Barkham; K Light; D Richards Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Z Darwin; P Galdas; S Hinchliff; E Littlewood; D McMillan; L McGowan; S Gilbody Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2017-01-26 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Emma M Reese; Melissa Jane Barlow; Maddison Dillon; Sariah Villalon; Michael D Barnes; AliceAnn Crandall Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-13 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Francesca Agostini; Erica Neri; Federica Genova; Elena Trombini; Alessandra Provera; Augusto Biasini; Marcello Stella Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-02 Impact factor: 4.614