Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24383441›Full record

Trial reportTrials2014

Comparing the feasibility, acceptability, clinical-, and cost-effectiveness of mental health e-screening to paper-based screening on the detection of depression, anxiety, and psychosocial risk in pregnant women: a study protocol of a randomized, parallel-group, superiority trial.

Dawn Kingston, Sheila McDonald, Anne Biringer, Marie-Paule Austin, Kathy Hegadoren, Sarah McDonald, Rebecca Giallo, Arto Ohinmaa, Gerri Lasiuk, Glenda MacQueen and 3 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01899534 (Mental Health E-screening in Pregnant and Postpartum Women), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01899534 nacompletednot on this map

Mental Health E-screening in Pregnant and Postpartum Women

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of CalgaryRan2013 to 2014Enrolled566ConditionsDepression, AnxietyArmsE-screening
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Dawn KingstonUniversity of Alberta, 11405-87th Avenue, Edmonton, T6G 1C9, Canada. dawn.kingston@ualberta.ca.
Sheila McDonald
Anne Biringer
Marie-Paule Austin
Kathy Hegadoren
Sarah McDonald
Rebecca Giallo
Arto Ohinmaa
Gerri Lasiuk
Glenda MacQueen
Wendy Sword
Marie Lane-Smith
Sander Veldhuyzen van Zanten
University of Alberta · CAMcMaster University · CAUniversity of Calgary · CAParenting Research Centre · AUUniversity of Toronto · CAUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStress, depression, and anxiety affect 15% to 25% of pregnant women. However, substantial barriers to psychosocial assessment exist, resulting in less than 20% of prenatal care providers assessing and treating mental health problems. Moreover, pregnant women are often reluctant to disclose their mental health concerns to a healthcare provider. Identifying screening and assessment tools and procedures that are acceptable to both women and service providers, cost-effective, and clinically useful is needed. METHODS/

designThe primary objective of this randomized, parallel-group, superiority trial is to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a computer tablet-based prenatal psychosocial assessment (e-screening) compared to paper-based screening. Secondary objectives are to compare the two modes of screening on: (1) the level of detection of prenatal depression and anxiety symptoms and psychosocial risk; (2) the level of disclosure of symptoms; (3) the factors associated with feasibility, acceptability, and disclosure; (4) the psychometric properties of the e-version of the assessment tools; and (5) cost-effectiveness. A sample of 542 women will be recruited from large, primary care maternity clinics and a high-risk antenatal unit in an urban Canadian city. Pregnant women are eligible to participate if they: (1) receive care at one of the recruitment sites; (2) are able to speak/read English; (3) are willing to be randomized to e-screening; and (4) are willing to participate in a follow-up diagnostic interview within 1 week of recruitment. Allocation is by computer-generated randomization. Women in the intervention group will complete an online psychosocial assessment on a computer tablet, while those in the control group will complete the same assessment in paper-based form. All women will complete baseline questionnaires at the time of recruitment and will participate in a diagnostic interview within 1 week of recruitment. Research assistants conducting diagnostic interviews and physicians will be blinded. A qualitative descriptive study involving healthcare providers from the recruitment sites and women will provide data on feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. We hypothesize that mental health e-screening in primary care maternity settings and high-risk antenatal units will be as or more feasible, acceptable, and capable of detecting depression, anxiety, and psychosocial risk compared to paper-based screening.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01899534.

Indexed as

InternetMental HealthPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesResearch DesignSurveys and QuestionnairesAnxietyCanadaClinical ProtocolsComputers, HandheldDepressionFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMental Health ServicesPredictive Value of TestsPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID24383441
PMCPMC3892094
OpenAlexW2075289519

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.