Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26696004›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2015

Pregnant Women's Perceptions of Harms and Benefits of Mental Health Screening.

Dawn Kingston, Marie-Paule Austin, Sheila W McDonald, Lydia Vermeyden, Maureen Heaman, Kathleen Hegadoren, Gerri Lasiuk, Joshua Kingston, Wendy Sword, Karly Jarema and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Dawn KingstonFaculty of Nursing, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Marie-Paule AustinSt John of God Chair Perinatal & Women's Mental Health, School of Psychiatry, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Sheila W McDonaldPopulation, Public, and Aboriginal Health, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Lydia VermeydenFaculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Maureen HeamanCollege of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Kathleen HegadorenFaculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Gerri LasiukFaculty of Nursing, University of Saskatchewan, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Joshua KingstonFaculty of Science (Computer Science), MacEwan University, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Wendy SwordSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Karly JaremaFaculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Sander Veldhuyzen van ZantenDivision of Gastroenterology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Sarah D McDonaldDivision of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Departments of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Radiology, and Clinical, Epidemiology & Biostatistics McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Anne BiringerDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Ada and Slaight Family Director of Maternity Care, Ray D Wolfe Department of Family Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
University of Alberta · CAMcMaster University · CAMacEwan University · CAUniversity of Manitoba · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CAUniversity of Saskatchewan · CAUniversity of Toronto · CAUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA widely held concern of screening is that its psychological harms may outweigh the benefits of early detection and treatment. This study describes pregnant women's perceptions of possible harms and benefits of mental health screening and factors associated with identifying screening as harmful or beneficial.

methodsThis study analyzed a subgroup of women who had undergone formal or informal mental health screening from our larger multi-site, cross-sectional study. Pregnant women >16 years of age who spoke/read English were recruited (May-December 2013) from prenatal classes and maternity clinics in Alberta, Canada. Descriptive statistics were generated to summarize harms and benefits of screening and multivariable logistic regression identified factors associated with reporting at least one harm or affirming screening as a positive experience (January-December 2014).

resultsOverall study participation rate was 92% (N = 460/500). Among women screened for mental health concerns (n = 238), 63% viewed screening as positive, 69% were glad to be asked, and 87% took it as evidence their provider cared about them. Only one woman identified screening as a negative experience. Of the 6 harms, none was endorsed by >7% of women, with embarrassment being most cited. Women who were very comfortable (vs somewhat/not comfortable) with screening were more likely to report it as a positive experience. LIMITATIONS: Women were largely Caucasian, well-educated, partnered women; thus, findings may not be generalizable to women with socioeconomic risk.

conclusionsMost women perceived prenatal mental health screening as having high benefit and low harm. These findings dispel popular concerns that mental health screening is psychologically harmful.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthMental HealthAdultAlbertaCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMass ScreeningPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID26696004
PMCPMC4687889
OpenAlexW2259085538

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.