Extending EPDS screening in perinatal consultation-liaison care: A pragmatic framework for risk assessment.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q4 PSYCHIATRY
Kyohei Otani
{"title":"Extending EPDS screening in perinatal consultation-liaison care: A pragmatic framework for risk assessment.","authors":"Kyohei Otani","doi":"10.1177/10398562261469339","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectiveSymptom-based screening alone is insufficient for identifying perinatal mental health risk in general hospital settings. Although Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS)-centred screening is embedded in Australian policy, psychosocial adversity and somatic illness may contribute to psychiatric morbidity that is not captured by symptom screening alone. This perspective proposes a consultation-liaison framework that augments, but does not replace, universal screening.Intimate partner violence and hyperemesis gravidarum are associated with substantial psychiatric morbidity that may not be fully reflected by EPDS scores, yet are inconsistently captured by symptom-based screening.ConclusionThe Triangulated Perinatal Risk Assessment (TPRA) framework is a hypothesis-generating consultation-liaison framework that builds on established psychosocial risk-assessment approaches, including the Antenatal Risk Questionnaire and Psychosocial Risk Assessment Model. TPRA operates after initial risk flagging and integrates symptom assessment, psychosocial risk, and somatic burden to support CL-stage formulation and care allocation. Where perinatal liaison nursing capacity exists, TPRA may provide a pragmatic structure for organising information already gathered in routine care.TPRA may be relatively low-burden and potentially sustainable within existing consultation-liaison structures, but its feasibility, workload, referral burden, false-positive burden, and clinical impact remain unevaluated and require prospective study.</p>","PeriodicalId":8630,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Psychiatry","volume":" ","pages":"10398562261469339"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10398562261469339","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ObjectiveSymptom-based screening alone is insufficient for identifying perinatal mental health risk in general hospital settings. Although Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS)-centred screening is embedded in Australian policy, psychosocial adversity and somatic illness may contribute to psychiatric morbidity that is not captured by symptom screening alone. This perspective proposes a consultation-liaison framework that augments, but does not replace, universal screening.Intimate partner violence and hyperemesis gravidarum are associated with substantial psychiatric morbidity that may not be fully reflected by EPDS scores, yet are inconsistently captured by symptom-based screening.ConclusionThe Triangulated Perinatal Risk Assessment (TPRA) framework is a hypothesis-generating consultation-liaison framework that builds on established psychosocial risk-assessment approaches, including the Antenatal Risk Questionnaire and Psychosocial Risk Assessment Model. TPRA operates after initial risk flagging and integrates symptom assessment, psychosocial risk, and somatic burden to support CL-stage formulation and care allocation. Where perinatal liaison nursing capacity exists, TPRA may provide a pragmatic structure for organising information already gathered in routine care.TPRA may be relatively low-burden and potentially sustainable within existing consultation-liaison structures, but its feasibility, workload, referral burden, false-positive burden, and clinical impact remain unevaluated and require prospective study.

在围产期咨询联络护理中扩展EPDS筛查:风险评估的实用框架。
目的单纯以症状为基础的筛查不足以识别普通医院的围产期心理健康风险。尽管以爱丁堡产后抑郁量表(EPDS)为中心的筛查已被纳入澳大利亚的政策,但心理逆境和躯体疾病可能导致精神疾病的发病率,而仅靠症状筛查是无法捕捉到的。这一观点提出了一种协商联络框架,可以增强但不能取代普遍筛查。亲密伴侣暴力和妊娠剧吐与大量精神疾病相关,EPDS评分可能无法完全反映这些疾病,但基于症状的筛查也不一致。结论三角围产儿风险评估(TPRA)框架是一个假设生成咨询联络框架,建立在包括产前风险问卷和社会心理风险评估模型在内的既定社会心理风险评估方法之上。TPRA在最初的风险标记后进行操作,并整合症状评估、社会心理风险和躯体负担,以支持cl期制定和护理分配。在围产期联络护理能力存在的地方,TPRA可以提供一个实用的结构来组织已经在常规护理中收集的信息。TPRA可能负担相对较低,并且在现有的咨询联络结构中具有潜在的可持续性,但其可行性、工作量、转诊负担、假阳性负担和临床影响仍未得到评估,需要进行前瞻性研究。
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
Australasian Psychiatry
Australasian Psychiatry 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
5.60%
发文量
159
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Australasian Psychiatry is the bi-monthly journal of The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) that aims to promote the art of psychiatry and its maintenance of excellence in practice. The journal is peer-reviewed and accepts submissions, presented as original research; reviews; descriptions of innovative services; comments on policy, history, politics, economics, training, ethics and the Arts as they relate to mental health and mental health services; statements of opinion and letters. Book reviews are commissioned by the editor. A section of the journal provides information on RANZCP business and related matters.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书