Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an electronic mindfulness-based intervention to improve maternal mental health in the peripartum: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Perinatal women are highly vulnerable to developing mental health issues and particularly susceptible to a recurrence of psychiatric illness. Poor mental health during the perinatal period can have long-term impacts on the physical and psychiatric health of both mother and child. A potentially useful strategy to improve women's mental health is through a mobile application teaching mindfulness, an evidence-based technique helping individuals focus on the present moment. METHODS: A mixed method, prospective randomised controlled trial. The study group comprise women aged 18 years and over, who are attending the public and private maternity clinics at Mater Mothers' Hospital. A sample of 360 prenatal women will be randomised into the intervention group (with the use of the mindfulness app) or usual care. Participants will remain in the study for 11 months and will be assessed at four timepoints for changes in postnatal depression, mother-infant bonding, and quality of life. A cost-effectiveness evaluation will also be conducted using quality-adjusted life year (QALY) calculations. A random selection of intervention participants will be invited to attend focus groups to give feedback on the mindfulness app. DISCUSSION: Previous studies have found mindfulness interventions can reduce stress, anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances in a prenatal population. The risks of the intervention are low, but could be of significant benefit for women who are unable to attend face-to-face appointments due to geographical, financial, or time barriers; during endemic or pandemic scenarios; or due to health or mobility issues. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was approved by the Mater Misericordiae Human Research Ethics Committee (83,589). Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12622001581752 ( https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=385107&isReview=true ). Registered on 22 Dec. 2022.

Red flags and gut feelings-Midwives' perceptions of domestic and family violence screening and detection in a maternity department.

BACKGROUND: Domestic and family violence (DFV) is known to escalate during pregnancy. Routine screening for DFV in maternity departments is a widely acceptable practice according to staff and women. This study is part of a 3-year follow-up of an organisational intervention evaluation and aimed to identify clinicians' perceptions of current practices, as well as barriers and enablers to DFV antenatal screening. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with ten midwives about conducting DFV screening within the maternity department of a large tertiary public hospital in Queensland, Australia. Interview transcripts were read and thematically analysed by two independent researchers. RESULTS: Four main themes emerged from the data: uncertainty despite education and training; fear of opening Pandora's Box; working with 'red flags' and 'gut feelings'; and it's all about the relationship. CONCLUSION: Although clinicians identified the importance of guidelines for managing DFV and knowledge of resources and services, confidence varied. Ongoing, formal, mandatory training in the area of DFV was highlighted. Managing partner presence in the room, building rapport with the woman, and time constraints continue to be challenging barriers to DFV detection. Routine screening, continuity of care, and staff knowledge and experience were major enablers to successful detection and response.

A cross-sectional survey of pregnant women's perceptions of routine domestic and family violence screening and responses by midwives: Testing of three new tools.

BACKGROUND: Implementing Domestic and Family Violence (DFV) screening, support, and prevention within maternity services is becoming common practice but women's experiences of screening are not routinely evaluated. AIMS: (1) Explore pregnant women's experiences of routine DFV screening and perceptions of responses by midwives; and (2) undertake preliminary testing of three new tools. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional design, pregnant women (n = 210) attending an antenatal service were surveyed. Three new measures: beliefs about DFV screening; non-disclosure of DFV; and midwifery support were tested. RESULTS: Most women (92.3% n = 194) recalled being screened. Twelve (5.8%) respondents had/were experiencing DFV. A quarter (24.1% n = 49) had experienced or witnessed violence in the home as a child. The scales were reliable and factor analysis established validity. Women reported positive beliefs (mean 35.38, SD 3.63 range 19-40) and views about midwifery support (mean 24.88, SD 3.08 range 18-30). There was less agreement about why some women do not disclose DFV (mean 21.97, SD 4.27, range 8-30). Women who experienced or witnessed violence as a child, or were experiencing violence now were less comfortable with screening. Comments (n = 75) revealed support for routine enquiry that was confidential, explained, and occurred in a trusting relationship. DISCUSSION: Women were supportive of screening, but actual rates of disclosure were low. Women acknowledged the importance of screening but did not want their information shared. CONCLUSIONS: Women value screening, even if DFV is not disclosed. Exploring women's experiences is central to ensuring quality care.