Stakeholder perspectives on antenatal depression and the potential for psychological intervention in rural Ethiopia: a qualitative study.
Acceptability
Antenatal depressive symptoms
Conceptualisation
Ethiopia
Qualitative study
Journal
BMC pregnancy and childbirth
ISSN: 1471-2393
Titre abrégé: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967799
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Jun 2020
22 Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
05
03
2020
accepted:
18
06
2020
entrez:
24
6
2020
pubmed:
24
6
2020
medline:
16
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Psychological interventions for antenatal depression are an integral part of evidence-based care but need to be contextualised for respective sociocultural settings. In this study, we aimed to understand women and healthcare workers' (HCWs) perspectives of antenatal depression, their treatment preferences and potential acceptability and feasibility of psychological interventions in the rural Ethiopian context. In-depth interviews were conducted with women who had previously scored above the locally validated cut-off (five or more) on the Patient Health Questionnaire during pregnancy (n = 8), primary healthcare workers (HCWs; nurses, midwives and health officers) (n = 8) and community-based health extension workers (n = 7). Translated interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Women expressed their distress largely through somatic complaints, such as a headache and feeling weak. Facility and community-based HCWs suspected antenatal depression when women reported reduced appetite, sleep problems, difficulty bonding with the baby, or if they refused to breast-feed or were poorly engaged with antenatal care. Both women and HCWs perceived depression as a reaction ("thinking too much") to social adversities such as poverty, marital conflict, perinatal complications and losses. Depressive symptoms and social adversities were often attributed to spiritual causes. Women awaited God's will in isolation at home or talked to neighbours as coping mechanisms. HCWs' motivation to provide help, the availability of integrated primary mental health care and a culture among women of seeking advice were potential facilitators for acceptability of a psychological intervention. Fears of being seen publicly during pregnancy, domestic and farm workload and staff shortages in primary healthcare were potential barriers to acceptability of the intervention. Antenatal care providers such as midwives were considered best placed to deliver interventions, given their close interaction with women during pregnancy. Women and HCWs in rural Ethiopia linked depressive symptoms in pregnancy with social adversities, suggesting that interventions which help women cope with real-world difficulties may be acceptable. Intervention design should accommodate the identified facilitators and barriers to implementation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Psychological interventions for antenatal depression are an integral part of evidence-based care but need to be contextualised for respective sociocultural settings. In this study, we aimed to understand women and healthcare workers' (HCWs) perspectives of antenatal depression, their treatment preferences and potential acceptability and feasibility of psychological interventions in the rural Ethiopian context.
METHODS
METHODS
In-depth interviews were conducted with women who had previously scored above the locally validated cut-off (five or more) on the Patient Health Questionnaire during pregnancy (n = 8), primary healthcare workers (HCWs; nurses, midwives and health officers) (n = 8) and community-based health extension workers (n = 7). Translated interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Women expressed their distress largely through somatic complaints, such as a headache and feeling weak. Facility and community-based HCWs suspected antenatal depression when women reported reduced appetite, sleep problems, difficulty bonding with the baby, or if they refused to breast-feed or were poorly engaged with antenatal care. Both women and HCWs perceived depression as a reaction ("thinking too much") to social adversities such as poverty, marital conflict, perinatal complications and losses. Depressive symptoms and social adversities were often attributed to spiritual causes. Women awaited God's will in isolation at home or talked to neighbours as coping mechanisms. HCWs' motivation to provide help, the availability of integrated primary mental health care and a culture among women of seeking advice were potential facilitators for acceptability of a psychological intervention. Fears of being seen publicly during pregnancy, domestic and farm workload and staff shortages in primary healthcare were potential barriers to acceptability of the intervention. Antenatal care providers such as midwives were considered best placed to deliver interventions, given their close interaction with women during pregnancy.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Women and HCWs in rural Ethiopia linked depressive symptoms in pregnancy with social adversities, suggesting that interventions which help women cope with real-world difficulties may be acceptable. Intervention design should accommodate the identified facilitators and barriers to implementation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32571246
doi: 10.1186/s12884-020-03069-6
pii: 10.1186/s12884-020-03069-6
pmc: PMC7310345
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
371Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/M014290/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/M025470/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/R018464/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
J Affect Disord. 2016 Oct;203:121-129
pubmed: 27285725
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Mar 23;18(1):205
pubmed: 29566680
J Affect Disord. 2017 Dec 1;223:194-208
pubmed: 28763638
Glob Ment Health (Camb). 2018 Jan 18;5:e3
pubmed: 29435353
PLoS Med. 2006 Oct;3(10):e294
pubmed: 17076546
Int J STD AIDS. 2019 Oct;30(11):1049-1054
pubmed: 31451075
Psychol Med. 2015 Jul;45(9):1999-2012
pubmed: 25678201
Int J Ment Health Syst. 2012 Sep 06;6(1):12
pubmed: 22954173
Psychother Res. 2015;25(4):435-44
pubmed: 24708408
Arch Womens Ment Health. 2010 Oct;13(5):385-93
pubmed: 20148274
Health Soc Care Community. 2019 May;27(3):e23-e36
pubmed: 30178901
Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2017 May 8;13:149-181
pubmed: 28482687
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Jan;28(1):113-33
pubmed: 24054170
BMC Public Health. 2011 Oct 26;11:828
pubmed: 22029430
BMC Psychiatry. 2014 Jul 07;14:194
pubmed: 24999041
Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Apr;103(4):698-709
pubmed: 15051562
Soc Sci Med. 1977 Jan;11(1):3-10
pubmed: 887955
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016 Oct 10;16(1):301
pubmed: 27724876
PLoS Med. 2012;9(12):e1001359
pubmed: 23300387
Soc Sci Med. 2015 Dec;147:170-83
pubmed: 26584235
Trop Med Int Health. 2009 Feb;14(2):156-66
pubmed: 19187514
BMJ Open. 2019 Jan 15;9(1):e024277
pubmed: 30647043
Arch Womens Ment Health. 2015 Apr;18(2):177-185
pubmed: 24957779
Ann Fam Med. 2004 Nov-Dec;2(6):555-62
pubmed: 15576541
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018 Nov 29;18(1):462
pubmed: 30486804
Bull World Health Organ. 2012 Feb 1;90(2):139G-149G
pubmed: 22423165
BMC Psychiatry. 2010 Apr 30;10:32
pubmed: 20433695
Ann Intern Med. 1978 Feb;88(2):251-8
pubmed: 626456
Psychol Med. 2014 Apr;44(6):1131-46
pubmed: 23866176
J Affect Disord. 2012 Feb;136(3):340-9
pubmed: 22196052
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Feb 16;16:53
pubmed: 26880075
PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e48396
pubmed: 23110236
Seishin Shinkeigaku Zasshi. 2015;117(11):902-9
pubmed: 26901890
J Affect Disord. 2017 Sep;219:86-92
pubmed: 28531848
Nutr J. 2016 Jul 11;15(1):64
pubmed: 27401187
Soc Sci Med. 2005 Apr;60(7):1625-35
pubmed: 15652693
Reprod Health. 2019 Mar 4;16(1):28
pubmed: 30832700
BMC Psychiatry. 2016 Jun 10;16:196
pubmed: 27287387
BMC Psychiatry. 2017 Aug 22;17(1):301
pubmed: 28830395
J Am Board Fam Pract. 2005 Mar-Apr;18(2):125-31
pubmed: 15798141
Can J Psychiatry. 2004 Nov;49(11):726-35
pubmed: 15633850
BMJ. 2000 Sep 16;321(7262):694-6
pubmed: 10987780
PLoS One. 2020 Jan 10;15(1):e0227323
pubmed: 31923245
Lancet Psychiatry. 2019 Feb;6(2):128-139
pubmed: 30686386
J Gen Intern Med. 2001 Sep;16(9):606-13
pubmed: 11556941
Clin Psychol Rev. 2007 Jan;27(1):46-57
pubmed: 16480801
BMC Psychiatry. 2018 Feb 8;18(1):41
pubmed: 29422037