Assessment of perinatal anxiety: diagnostic accuracy of five measures.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety in pregnancy and after giving birth (the perinatal period) is highly prevalent but under-recognised. Robust methods of assessing perinatal anxiety are essential for services to identify and treat women appropriately. AIMS: To determine which assessment measures are most psychometrically robust and effective at identifying women with perinatal anxiety (primary objective) and depression (secondary objective). METHOD: We conducted a prospective longitudinal cohort study of 2243 women who completed five measures of anxiety and depression (Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD) two- and seven-item versions; Whooley questions; Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation (CORE-10); and Stirling Antenatal Anxiety Scale (SAAS)) during pregnancy (15 weeks, 22 weeks and 31 weeks) and after birth (6 weeks). To assess diagnostic accuracy a sample of 403 participants completed modules of the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). RESULTS: The best diagnostic accuracy for anxiety was shown by the CORE-10 and SAAS. The best diagnostic accuracy for depression was shown by the CORE-10, SAAS and Whooley questions, although the SAAS had lower specificity. The same cut-off scores for each measure were optimal for identifying anxiety or depression (SAAS ≥9; CORE-10 ≥9; Whooley ≥1). All measures were psychometrically robust, with good internal consistency, convergent validity and unidimensional factor structure. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified robust and effective methods of assessing perinatal anxiety and depression. We recommend using the CORE-10 or SAAS to assess perinatal anxiety and the CORE-10 or Whooley questions to assess depression. The GAD-2 and GAD-7 did not perform as well as other measures and optimal cut-offs were lower than currently recommended.

Developing the midwifery Unit Self-Assessment (MUSA) Framework: A mixed methods study in six European midwifery units.

OBJECTIVE: Evidence indicates that midwifery units are associated with improved health outcomes and experiences; however, there are barriers to their development and scale-up. Guidelines are crucial to their implementation, ensuring that they are developed and integrated sustainably and safely. This study aimed to evaluate and explore the use of a self-assessment tool and improvement process for midwifery units in Europe. METHODS: A mixed methods study was conducted with six midwifery units located in Europe. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analysed concurrently, and each informed the other, making the approach both interactive and iterative. The six midwifery units were invited to complete the self-assessment tool, the responses of which were analysed descriptively, and implement an improvement process into practice. Interviews were conducted with midwives using the tool and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Findings indicate benefits and potential feasibility of an improvement process for midwifery units, and suggest that the self-assessment tool is a generative and reflexive practice for midwives. However, issues were identified around limitations of the tool, structural barriers and professional autonomy. Midwifery units require a framework to guide and support their implementation, improvement and scale-up. CONCLUSION: Results highlight the need for more consideration of how macro-level barriers, encompassing social, legal and political dimensions of maternity care, factor locally in the implementation and scale-up of midwifery units. More research is needed to evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of implementing a self-assessment and improvement framework in midwifery units across Europe.