Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32767969›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2020

Opening the door: midwives' perceptions of two models of psychosocial assessment in pregnancy- a mixed methods study.

V Schmied, N Reilly, E Black, D Kingston, K Talcevska, V Mule, M-P Austin

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors.

V SchmiedSchool of Nursing & Midwifery, Western Sydney University, Locked Bag 1797 Penrith, Sydney, NSW, 2751, Australia. v.schmied@westernsydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4066-1781
N ReillyResearch Centre for Generational Health and Ageing & School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
E BlackDrug and Alcohol Services, South Eastern Sydney Local Health District, 591 South Dowling Street, Surry Hills NSW 2010 and Discipline of Addiction Medicine, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia.
D KingstonFaculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
K TalcevskaPerinatal and Women's Mental Health Unit, St John of God Health Care and University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
V MulePerinatal and Women's Mental Health Unit, St John of God Health Care and University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
M-P AustinPerinatal and Women's Mental Health Unit, St John of God Health Care and University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOne in five women experience psychological distress in the perinatal period. To support women appropriately, Australian guidelines recommend routine depression screening and psychosocial risk assessment by midwives in pregnancy. However, there is some evidence that current screening processes results in higher rates of false positives. The Perinatal Integrated Psychosocial Assessment (PIPA) Project compared two models of psychosocial assessment and referral - Usual Care and the PIPA model - with a view to improving referral decisions. This paper describes midwives' perspectives on psychosocial assessment, depression screening and referral at the antenatal booking appointment and compares midwives' experiences with, and perspectives on, the two models of care under investigation.

methodsA two-phase, convergent mixed methods design was used. Midwives providing antenatal care completed a self-report survey in phase one prior to implementation of the new model of psychosocial assessment (n = 26) and again in phase two, following implementation (n = 27). Sixteen midwives also participated in two focus groups in phase two. Quantitative and qualitative data were compared and integrated in the presentation of results and interpretation of findings.

resultsMidwives supported psychosocial assessment believing it was a catalyst for 'Opening the door" to conversations with women. Midwives were comfortable asking the questions and tailored their approach to build rapport and trust. Overall. midwives expressed favourable views towards the PIPA model. A greater proportion of midwives relied mostly or entirely on the suggested wording for the psychosocial questions in the PIPA model compared to Usual Care (44.4% vs 12.0%, χ

conclusionThe study identified benefits of the new model and can inform improvements in psychosocial screening, referral and related care processes within maternity settings. The study demonstrates that psychosocial assessment can, over time, become normalised and embedded in practice.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelMidwiferyModels, PsychologicalAdultDepressionFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsYoung AdultMental health^mesh term.MidwivesMixed methodsPregnancy^Psychosocial factors^Risk assessment^

Identifiers

PMID32767969
PMCPMC7412833

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.