Women's experiences and views of routine assessment for anxiety in pregnancy and after birth: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety in pregnancy and postnatally is highly prevalent but under-recognized. To identify perinatal anxiety, assessment tools must be acceptable to women who are pregnant or postnatal. METHODS: A qualitative study of women's experiences of anxiety and mental health assessment during pregnancy and after birth and views on the acceptability of perinatal anxiety assessment. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 41 pregnant or postnatal women. Results were analysed using Sekhon et al.'s acceptability framework, as well as inductive coding of new or emergent themes. RESULTS: Women's perceptions of routine assessment for perinatal anxiety were generally favourable. Most participants thought assessment was needed and that the benefits outweighed potential negative impacts, such as unnecessary referrals to specialist services. Six themes were identified of: (1) Raising awareness; (2) Improving support; (3) Surveillance and stigma; (4) Gatekeeping; (5) Personalized care and (6) Trust. Assessment was seen as a tool for raising awareness about mental health during the perinatal period and a mechanism for normalizing discussions about mental health more generally. However, views on questionnaire assessments themselves were mixed, with some participants feeling they could become an administrative 'tick box' exercise that depersonalizes care and does not provide a space to discuss mental health problems. CONCLUSION: Routine assessment of perinatal anxiety was generally viewed as positive and acceptable; however, this was qualified by the extent to which it was informed and personalized as a process. Approaches to assessment should ideally be flexible, tailored across the perinatal period and embedded in continuity of care.

Evaluation of perinatal anxiety assessment measures: a cognitive interview study.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety in pregnancy and postpartum is highly prevalent but under-recognised. To identify perinatal anxiety, assessment tools must be acceptable, relevant, and easy to use for women in the perinatal period. METHODS: To determine the acceptability and ease of use of anxiety measures to pregnant or postpartum women (n = 41) we examined five versions of four measures: the Generalised Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD) 2-item and 7-item versions; Whooley questions; Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation (CORE-10); and Stirling Antenatal Anxiety Scale (SAAS). Cognitive interviews were used to examine ease of comprehension, judgement, retrieval and responding. RESULTS: All measures were acceptable. Some items were deemed less relevant to the perinatal period e.g., difficulties sleeping. Ease of comprehension, judgement, retrieval and responding varied, with all measures having strengths and weaknesses. The SAAS and CORE-10 had the lowest mean number of problematic components. The GAD had the highest mean number of problematic components​. Non-binary response options were preferred. Preferences for time frames (e.g. one week, one month) varied. Qualitative data provides in-depth information on responses to each measure. CONCLUSIONS: Findings can be used to inform clinical guidelines and research on acceptable anxiety assessment in pregnancy and after birth.

The Stirling Antenatal Anxiety Scale (SAAS): Turkish validity and reliability study.

AIMS: To examine the psychometric properties of the Stirling Antenatal Anxiety Scale (SAAS), developed by Sinesi et al., which assesses the level of anxiety of pregnant women in the prenatal period, in the Turkish culture, and to conduct a validity and reliability study. METHODS: This study had a methodological approach, with a cross-sectional and descriptive research design. Reporting was in accordance with the STROBE checklist. The sample included 160 pregnant women who were followed up in the maternity outpatient clinics of a public hospital and a private hospital in Istanbul. Data were collected face-to-face using a personal information form, the Turkish version of the SAAS, and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 scale between June and August 2023. In the data analysis, validity analyses were performed with content and construct validity and multiple fit indices for confirmatory factor analysis. Item-total score analysis was conducted using Cronbach's alpha coefficient and Pearson's correlation analysis to assess reliability. Descriptive and reliability analyses were undertaken using SPSS v.28.0.1.0, and validity analyses were performed using SPSS AMOS v.26.0.0.0. FINDINGS: Based on expert opinions on the items in the Turkish version of the SAAS, the content validity ratio was 0.96. The decision was made to exclude Item 9 from the Turkish version because the item factor load was low. The Turkish version had a single factor, as did the original version. The Cronbach alpha coefficient was 0.87, so the Turkish version was determined to have high reliability. CONCLUSION: The Turkish version of the SAAS, originally produced in English, has high levels of validity and reliability. In addition, it is short and easy to apply in clinical and research settings. As such, the Turkish version of the SAAS is recommended for use to evaluate the level of anxiety in pregnant women.

When is the best time to screen for perinatal anxiety? A longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND: For screening for anxiety during pregnancy and after birth to be efficient and effective it is important to know the optimal time to screen in order to identify women who might benefit from treatment. AIMS: To determine the optimal time to screen for perinatal anxiety to identify women with anxiety disorders and those who want treatment. A secondary aim was to examine the stability and course of perinatal anxiety over time. METHODS: Prospective longitudinal cohort study of 2243 women who completed five screening questionnaires of anxiety and mental health symptoms in early pregnancy (11 weeks), mid-pregnancy (23 weeks), late pregnancy (32 weeks) and postnatally (8 weeks). Anxiety and mental health questionnaires were the GAD7, GAD2, SAAS, CORE-10 and Whooley questions. To establish presence of anxiety disorders diagnostic interviews were conducted with a subsample of 403 participants. RESULTS: Early pregnancy was the optimal time to screen for anxiety to identify women with anxiety disorders and women wanting treatment at any time during pregnancy or postnatally. These findings were consistent across all five questionnaires of anxiety and mental health. Receiving treatment for perinatal mental health problems was most strongly associated with late pregnancy and/or postnatal assessments. Anxiety symptoms were highest in early pregnancy and decreased over time. CONCLUSION: Findings show that screening in early pregnancy is optimal for identifying women who have, or develop, anxiety disorders and who want treatment. This has clear implications for practice and policy for anxiety screening during the perinatal period.

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.

Meta-review of the barriers and facilitators to women accessing perinatal mental healthcare.

Perinatal mental health (PMH) problems are common and can have an adverse impact on women and their families. However, research suggests that a substantial proportion of women with PMH problems do not access care. OBJECTIVES: To synthesise the results from previous systematic reviews of barriers and facilitators to women to seeking help, accessing help, and engaging in PMH care, and to suggest recommendations for clinical practice and policy. DESIGN: A meta-review of systematic reviews. REVIEW METHODS: Seven databases were searched and reviewed using a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses search strategy. Studies that focused on the views of women seeking help and accessing PMH care were included. Data were analysed using thematic synthesis. Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews-2 was used to assess review methodology. To improve validity of results, a qualitative sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess whether themes remained consistent across all reviews, regardless of their quality rating. RESULTS: A total of 32 reviews were included. A wide range of barriers and facilitators to women accessing PMH care were identified. These mapped across a multilevel model of influential factors (individual, healthcare professional, interpersonal, organisational, political and societal) and across the care pathway (from decision to consult to receiving care). Evidence-based recommendations to support the design and delivery of PMH care were produced based on identified barriers and facilitators. CONCLUSION: The identified barriers and facilitators point to a complex interplay of many factors, highlighting the need for an international effort to increase awareness of PMH problems, reduce mental health stigma, and provide woman-centred, flexible care, delivered by well trained and culturally sensitive primary care, maternity, and psychiatric health professionals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019142854.

Anxiety scales used in pregnancy: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety disorders and self-reported symptoms are highly prevalent in pregnancy. Despite their negative impact on maternal and child outcomes, uncertainty remains regarding which symptoms can be considered accurate indicators of antenatal anxiety.AimsTo examine and synthesise the evidence in relation to the psychometric properties and content of self-report scales used to detect anxiety symptoms in pregnant women. METHOD: A systematic search was carried out and the methodological quality of all included studies was assessed. Only those achieving a rating of good or excellent were considered in a synthesis of the best available evidence. RESULTS: Several anxiety symptoms and domains were identified as promising for screening for general antenatal anxiety and pregnancy-related anxiety, including elevated levels of worry, symptoms of panic, fear of childbirth and excessive worries about the baby's health. CONCLUSIONS: This review contributes to the existing knowledge by identifying a number of anxiety symptoms that can be considered psychometrically robust indicators of antenatal anxiety.Declaration of interestNone.