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.

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.

The perceived impact of birth trauma witnessed by maternity health professionals: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Maternity health professionals (MHPs) caring for women may witness or be involved in traumatic births. This can be associated with MHPs experiencing secondary traumatic stress (STS) or probable post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which may impact MHPs emotionally and physically. The aims of this review were therefore to determine: (i) the prevalence of STS and PTSD in maternity health professionals; and (ii) the impact of witnessing birth trauma on maternity health professionals. METHODS: A mixed-methods systematic review was carried out by conducting literature searches on CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsychARTICLES, PsychINFO and PsychTESTS databases. Searches were conducted from the inception of databases up to February 2022 using search terms on MHPs and birth trauma combined. Methodological quality and bias were assessed. Data were synthesised using thematic synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies were included in the review. Sample size ranged from 9 to 2,165 (total N = 8,630). Participants included midwives, nurses and obstetricians aged 18-77 years. Many MHPs had witnessed a traumatic birth event (45% - 96.9%) with the prevalence of STS ranging from 12.6%-38.7% and the proportion of participants meeting diagnostic criteria for PTSD ranging from 3.1%-46%. MHPs reported positive and negative effects associated with witnessing traumatic birth events. Synthesis of quantitative and qualitative papers identified five themes: Negative emotions and symptoms; Responsibility and regret; Impact on practice and care; Challenging professional identity; and Team support being essential. DISCUSSION: Witnessing traumatic birth events is associated with profound emotional and physical impacts on MHPs, signifying the importance of acknowledging and addressing this in the maternity workforce. It is important to raise awareness of the impact of birth trauma on MHPs. Effective education and training guidelines, a supervisory network, ways to change practice and policy, and support and treatment should be provided to assist and improve the outcomes and work-life of MHPs' who witness traumatic births.

When birth is not as expected: a systematic review of the impact of a mismatch between expectations and experiences.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy and childbirth are significant events in women's lives and most women have expectations or plans for how they hope their labour and birth will go. It is possible that strong expectations about labour and birth lead to dissatisfaction or other negative outcomes if these expectations are not met, but it is not clear if this is the case. The aim was therefore to synthesise prospective studies in order to understand whether unmet birth expectations are associated with adverse outcomes for women, their partners and their infants. METHOD: Searches were carried out in Academic Search Complete; CINAHL; Medline; PsycINFO, PsychArticles, PubMed, SCOPUS and Web of Science. Forward and backward searches were also completed. Studies were included if they reported prospective empirical research that examined the association between a mismatch in birth expectations/experience and postnatal outcomes in women, their children and/or their partners. Data were synthesised qualitatively using a narrative approach where study characteristics, context and methodological quality were extracted and summarised and then the differences and similarities among studies were used to draw conclusions. RESULTS: Eleven quantitative studies were identified for inclusion from nine countries. A mismatch between birth expectations and experiences was associated with reduced birth satisfaction. Three studies found a link between a mismatch and the development of postnatal post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The evidence was inconsistent for postnatal depression, and fear of childbirth. Only one study looked at physical outcomes in the form of health-related quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: A mismatch between birth expectations and experiences is associated with birth satisfaction and it may increase the risk of developing postnatal PTSD. However, it is not clear whether a mismatch is associated with other postnatal mental health conditions. Further prospective research is needed to examine gaps in knowledge and provide standardised methods of measuring childbirth expectations-experiences mismatch. To ensure women's expectations are met, and therefore experience a satisfying birth experience, maternity providers should provide sensitive care, which acknowledges women's needs and preferences, is based on open and clear communication, is delivered as early in pregnancy as possible, and enables women to make their own decisions about care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Protocol registration: PROSPERO CRD42020191081 .

Barriers and facilitators to implementing perinatal mental health care in health and social care settings: a systematic review.

The improvement of perinatal mental health formed part of WHO's Millennium Development Goals. Research suggests that the implementation of perinatal mental health care is variable. To ensure successful implementation, barriers and facilitators to implementing perinatal mental health services need to be identified. Therefore, we aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators to implementing assessment, care, referral, and treatment for perinatal mental health into health and social care services. In this systematic review, we searched CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO with no language restrictions for primary research articles published between database inception and Dec 11, 2019. Forward and backward searches of included studies were completed by March 31, 2020. Studies were eligible if they made statements about factors that either facilitated or impeded the implementation of perinatal mental health assessment, care, referral, or treatment. Partial (10%) dual screening was done. Data were extracted with EPPI-Reviewer 4 and analysed by use of a thematic synthesis. The protocol is registered on PROSPERO, CRD42019142854. Database searching identified 21 535 citations, of which 46 studies were included. Implementation occurred in a wide range of settings and was affected by individual (eg, an inability to attend treatment), health-care professional (eg, training), interpersonal (eg, trusting relationships), organisational (eg, clear referral pathways), political (eg, funding), and societal factors (eg, stigma and culture). A complex range of barriers and facilitators affect the implementation of perinatal mental health policy and practice. Perinatal mental health services should be flexible and women-centred, and delivered by well trained health-care professionals working within a structure that facilitates continuity of carer. Strategies that can be used to improve implementation include, but are not limited to, co-production of services, implementation team meetings, funding, and coalition building. Future research should focus on implementation barriers and facilitators dependent on illness severity, the health-care setting, and inpatient care.