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

IF 3.5 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Cassandra Yuill, Andrea Sinesi, Rose Meades, Louise R Williams, Amy Delicate, Helen Cheyne, Margaret Maxwell, Judy Shakespeare, Fiona Alderdice, Rachael Leonard, Susan Ayers
{"title":"Women's experiences and views of routine assessment for anxiety in pregnancy and after birth: A qualitative study.","authors":"Cassandra Yuill, Andrea Sinesi, Rose Meades, Louise R Williams, Amy Delicate, Helen Cheyne, Margaret Maxwell, Judy Shakespeare, Fiona Alderdice, Rachael Leonard, Susan Ayers","doi":"10.1111/bjhp.12740","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":48161,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Health Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Health Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12740","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

妇女对孕期和产后焦虑症常规评估的经验和看法:一项定性研究。
背景:孕期和产后焦虑症的发病率很高,但却未得到充分认识。要识别围产期焦虑症,评估工具必须为孕期或产后妇女所接受:对妇女在孕期和产后进行焦虑和心理健康评估的经历以及对围产期焦虑评估可接受性的看法进行定性研究。对 41 名孕妇或产后妇女进行了半结构式访谈。采用 Sekhon 等人的可接受性框架对结果进行了分析,并对新的或出现的主题进行了归纳编码:结果:妇女对围产期焦虑症常规评估的看法普遍良好。大多数参与者认为需要进行评估,而且评估的益处大于潜在的负面影响,如不必要地转诊至专科服务机构。会议确定了六个主题:(1) 提高认识;(2) 改善支持;(3) 监督和污名化;(4) 把关;(5) 个性化护理和 (6) 信任。评估被认为是提高围产期心理健康意识的工具,也是使心理健康讨论正常化的机制。然而,对问卷评估本身的看法却不尽相同,一些参与者认为问卷评估可能会成为一种行政性的 "打勾 "工作,从而使护理工作失去个性,也无法提供一个讨论心理健康问题的空间:围产期焦虑症的常规评估被普遍认为是积极的、可接受的;但是,评估过程的知情程度和个性化程度也会影响评估结果。理想情况下,评估方法应具有灵活性,适合整个围产期,并与连续性护理相结合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
British Journal of Health Psychology
British Journal of Health Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
14.10
自引率
1.30%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: The focus of the British Journal of Health Psychology is to publish original research on various aspects of psychology that are related to health, health-related behavior, and illness throughout a person's life. The journal specifically seeks articles that are based on health psychology theory or discuss theoretical matters within the field.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信