Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37474171›Full record

ReviewBMJ open2023

Meta-review of the barriers and facilitators to women accessing perinatal mental healthcare.

Rebecca Webb, Nazihah Uddin, Georgina Constantinou, Elizabeth Ford, Abigail Easter, Judy Shakespeare, Agnes Hann, Nia Roberts, Fiona Alderdice, Andrea Sinesi and 4 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Can Social Work Interventions Improve Perinatal Mental Health Outcomes? A Systematic Review.Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

14 authors.

Rebecca WebbCentre for Maternal and Child Health Research, City University, London, UK rebecca.webb.2@city.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-8862-6491
Nazihah UddinCentre for Maternal and Child Health Research, City University, London, UK.
Georgina ConstantinouCentre for Maternal and Child Health Research, City University, London, UK.
Elizabeth FordDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5613-8509
Abigail EasterDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4462-6537
Judy ShakespeareRetired, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0770-8098
Agnes HannNational Childbirth Trust, London, UK.
Nia RobertsBodleian Health Care Libraries, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Fiona AlderdiceNuffield Department of Population Health, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Oxford, UK.
Andrea SinesiNursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit (NMAHP RU), University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Rose CoatesCentre for Maternal and Child Health Research, City University, London, UK.
Sally HoggFaculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Susan AyersCentre for Maternal and Child Health Research, City University, London, UK.
MATRIx Study Team

Funding

Department of Health NIHR128068
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Perinatal mental health (PMH) problems are common and can have an adverse impact on women and their families. However, research suggests that a substantial proportion of women with PMH problems do not access care.

objectivesTo synthesise the results from previous systematic reviews of barriers and facilitators to women to seeking help, accessing help, and engaging in PMH care, and to suggest recommendations for clinical practice and policy.

designA meta-review of systematic reviews. REVIEW

methodsSeven databases were searched and reviewed using a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses search strategy. Studies that focused on the views of women seeking help and accessing PMH care were included. Data were analysed using thematic synthesis. Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews-2 was used to assess review methodology. To improve validity of results, a qualitative sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess whether themes remained consistent across all reviews, regardless of their quality rating.

resultsA total of 32 reviews were included. A wide range of barriers and facilitators to women accessing PMH care were identified. These mapped across a multilevel model of influential factors (individual, healthcare professional, interpersonal, organisational, political and societal) and across the care pathway (from decision to consult to receiving care). Evidence-based recommendations to support the design and delivery of PMH care were produced based on identified barriers and facilitators.

conclusionThe identified barriers and facilitators point to a complex interplay of many factors, highlighting the need for an international effort to increase awareness of PMH problems, reduce mental health stigma, and provide woman-centred, flexible care, delivered by well trained and culturally sensitive primary care, maternity, and psychiatric health professionals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019142854.

Indexed as

Mental Health ServicesParturitionFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMental HealthPregnancySystematic Reviews as Topicanxiety disordersdepression & mood disordershealth policypsychiatry

Identifiers

PMID37474171
PMCPMC10360426

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.