Acceptability and appropriateness of a perinatal depression preventive group intervention: a qualitative analysis.
Adult
Attitude of Health Personnel
Depression
/ prevention & control
Female
Health Services Research
House Calls
Humans
Mental Health Services
Mothers
/ psychology
Patient Acceptance of Health Care
/ statistics & numerical data
Pregnancy
Pregnant Women
/ psychology
Psychotherapy, Group
Qualitative Research
Home visiting
Implementation
Perinatal depression
Qualitative analysis
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Mar 2020
07 Mar 2020
Historique:
received:
13
06
2019
accepted:
24
02
2020
entrez:
8
3
2020
pubmed:
8
3
2020
medline:
26
6
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Perinatal depression is a prevalent public health concern. Although preventive interventions exist, there is limited literature on the acceptability and appropriateness of these interventions, especially those delivered by paraprofessionals. The Mothers and Babies Program (MB) is a group-based perinatal depression preventive intervention delivered prenatally. A cluster-randomized controlled trial examined the acceptability, appropriateness, and effectiveness of MB delivered by mental health professionals compared to paraprofessional staff from home visiting programs. The full study enrolled 874 pregnant women. Fifty-three facilitators were trained and delivered the MB intervention to women in one of seven states in the United States. Semi-structured interviews were attempted with a randomly-selected subset of the full sample of pregnant women who received the MB intervention and with all facilitators. Specifically, interviews were conducted with 88 women who received the MB group intervention (45 in the paraprofessional-led arm and 43 in the mental health professional-led arm) and 46 women who facilitated the groups (27 home visiting staff and 19 mental health professionals). Interviews were conducted over the phone in English or Spanish and audio recorded. The recordings were translated into English, as needed, and transcribed. Thematic analysis was conducted using NVIVO to identify key themes related to intervention acceptability and appropriateness. Similarities and differences between study arms were explored. Clients and facilitators found the MB content and group format acceptable. Challenges included maintaining group attendance, transportation issues, and managing group discussion. Overall, facilitators found the intervention appropriate for pregnant clients with some challenges presented for clients in crisis situations, experiencing housing instability, and with literacy and learning challenges. Participants provided suggestions for improvement, both for the course content and implementation. There were no significant differences found between study arms. Overall, clients and facilitators enjoyed MB irrespective of study arm, and facilitators found the intervention appropriate for the population. These findings add to the qualitative literature on perinatal depression preventive interventions, specifically those delivered by paraprofessionals. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (Initial post: December 1, 2016; identifier: NCT02979444).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Perinatal depression is a prevalent public health concern. Although preventive interventions exist, there is limited literature on the acceptability and appropriateness of these interventions, especially those delivered by paraprofessionals. The Mothers and Babies Program (MB) is a group-based perinatal depression preventive intervention delivered prenatally. A cluster-randomized controlled trial examined the acceptability, appropriateness, and effectiveness of MB delivered by mental health professionals compared to paraprofessional staff from home visiting programs.
METHODS
METHODS
The full study enrolled 874 pregnant women. Fifty-three facilitators were trained and delivered the MB intervention to women in one of seven states in the United States. Semi-structured interviews were attempted with a randomly-selected subset of the full sample of pregnant women who received the MB intervention and with all facilitators. Specifically, interviews were conducted with 88 women who received the MB group intervention (45 in the paraprofessional-led arm and 43 in the mental health professional-led arm) and 46 women who facilitated the groups (27 home visiting staff and 19 mental health professionals). Interviews were conducted over the phone in English or Spanish and audio recorded. The recordings were translated into English, as needed, and transcribed. Thematic analysis was conducted using NVIVO to identify key themes related to intervention acceptability and appropriateness. Similarities and differences between study arms were explored.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Clients and facilitators found the MB content and group format acceptable. Challenges included maintaining group attendance, transportation issues, and managing group discussion. Overall, facilitators found the intervention appropriate for pregnant clients with some challenges presented for clients in crisis situations, experiencing housing instability, and with literacy and learning challenges. Participants provided suggestions for improvement, both for the course content and implementation. There were no significant differences found between study arms.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, clients and facilitators enjoyed MB irrespective of study arm, and facilitators found the intervention appropriate for the population. These findings add to the qualitative literature on perinatal depression preventive interventions, specifically those delivered by paraprofessionals.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (Initial post: December 1, 2016; identifier: NCT02979444).
Identifiants
pubmed: 32143644
doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-5031-z
pii: 10.1186/s12913-020-5031-z
pmc: PMC7060621
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02979444']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
189Subventions
Organisme : Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
ID : AD-1507-31473
Pays : United States
Références
Matern Child Health J. 2017 Mar;21(3):475-484
pubmed: 27535131
Matern Child Health J. 2014 May;18(4):873-81
pubmed: 23793487
J Affect Disord. 2017 Mar 01;210:100-110
pubmed: 28024220
Patient Educ Couns. 2012 Jun;87(3):405-10
pubmed: 22019021
Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2013;9:379-407
pubmed: 23394227
J Midwifery Womens Health. 2009 May-Jun;54(3):176-83
pubmed: 19410209
Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Nov;132(5):e208-e212
pubmed: 30629567
Health Technol Assess. 2016 May;20(37):1-414
pubmed: 27184772
Implement Sci. 2011 May 27;6:53
pubmed: 21619645
Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2018 May 7;14:185-208
pubmed: 29401043
Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Nov;106(5 Pt 1):1071-83
pubmed: 16260528
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
JAMA. 2019 Feb 12;321(6):580-587
pubmed: 30747971
Midwifery. 2012 Aug;28(4):502-8
pubmed: 21925778
Pediatrics. 2019 Jan;143(1):
pubmed: 30559120
Women Birth. 2013 Mar;26(1):82-6
pubmed: 22818031
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011 Mar;38(2):65-76
pubmed: 20957426
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Oct 08;(10):CD010414
pubmed: 24101553
Brain Res. 2014 Sep 11;1580:219-32
pubmed: 24239932
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2011 Apr;79(2):135-41
pubmed: 21319897