Introducing and integrating perinatal mental health screening: Development of an equity-informed evidence-based approach.


Journal

Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy
ISSN: 1369-7625
Titre abrégé: Health Expect
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9815926

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
10 2022
Historique:
revised: 30 03 2022
received: 15 11 2021
accepted: 01 05 2022
pubmed: 6 5 2022
medline: 1 11 2022
entrez: 5 5 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Pregnancy is a time of increased risk for developing or re-experiencing mental illness. Perinatal mental health screening for all women is recommended in many national guidelines, but a number of systems-level and individual barriers often hinder policy implementation. These barriers result in missed opportunities for detection and early intervention and are likely to be experienced disproportionately by women from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, including women of refugee backgrounds. The objectives of this study were to develop a theory-informed, evidence-based guide for introducing and integrating perinatal mental health screening across health settings and to synthesize the learnings from an implementation initiative and multisectoral partnership between the Centre of Perinatal Excellence (COPE), and a university-based research centre. COPE is a nongovernmental organization (NGO) commissioned to update the Australian perinatal mental health guidelines, train health professionals and implement digital screening. In this case study, barriers to implementation were prospectively identified and strategies to overcome them were developed. A pilot perinatal screening programme for depression and anxiety with a strong health equity focus was implemented and evaluated at a large public maternity service delivering care to a culturally diverse population of women in metropolitan Melbourne, Australia, including women of refugee background. Strategies that were identified preimplementation and postevaluation were mapped to theoretical frameworks. An implementation guide was developed to support future policy, planning and decision-making by healthcare organizations. Using a behavioural change framework (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour Model), the key barriers, processes and outcomes are described for a real-world example designed to maximize accessibility, feasibility and acceptability. A Programme Logic Model was developed to demonstrate the relationships of the inputs, which included stakeholder consultation, resource development and a digital screening platform, with the outcomes of the programme. A seven-stage implementation guide is presented for use in a range of healthcare settings. These findings describe an equity-informed, evidence-based approach that can be used by healthcare organizations to address common systems and individual-level barriers to implement perinatal depression and anxiety screening guidelines. These results present strategies that were informed by prior research involving patients and staff from a large public antenatal clinic in Melbourne, Australia. This involved interviews with health professionals from the clinic such as midwives, obstetricians, perinatal mental health and refugee health experts and interpreters. Interviews were also conducted with women of refugee background who were attending the clinic for antenatal care. A steering committee was formed to facilitate the implementation of the perinatal mental health screening programme comprising staff from key hospital departments, GP liaison, refugee health and well-being, the NGO COPE and academic experts in psychology, midwifery, obstetrics and public health. This committee met fortnightly for 2 years to devise strategies to address the barriers, implement and evaluate the programme. A community advisory group was also formed that involved women from eight different countries, some of refugee background, who had recently given birth at the health service. This committee met bimonthly and was instrumental in planning the implementation and evaluation such as recruitment strategies, resources and facilitating an understanding of the cultural complexity of the women participating in the study.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Pregnancy is a time of increased risk for developing or re-experiencing mental illness. Perinatal mental health screening for all women is recommended in many national guidelines, but a number of systems-level and individual barriers often hinder policy implementation. These barriers result in missed opportunities for detection and early intervention and are likely to be experienced disproportionately by women from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, including women of refugee backgrounds. The objectives of this study were to develop a theory-informed, evidence-based guide for introducing and integrating perinatal mental health screening across health settings and to synthesize the learnings from an implementation initiative and multisectoral partnership between the Centre of Perinatal Excellence (COPE), and a university-based research centre. COPE is a nongovernmental organization (NGO) commissioned to update the Australian perinatal mental health guidelines, train health professionals and implement digital screening.
METHODS
In this case study, barriers to implementation were prospectively identified and strategies to overcome them were developed. A pilot perinatal screening programme for depression and anxiety with a strong health equity focus was implemented and evaluated at a large public maternity service delivering care to a culturally diverse population of women in metropolitan Melbourne, Australia, including women of refugee background. Strategies that were identified preimplementation and postevaluation were mapped to theoretical frameworks. An implementation guide was developed to support future policy, planning and decision-making by healthcare organizations.
RESULTS
Using a behavioural change framework (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour Model), the key barriers, processes and outcomes are described for a real-world example designed to maximize accessibility, feasibility and acceptability. A Programme Logic Model was developed to demonstrate the relationships of the inputs, which included stakeholder consultation, resource development and a digital screening platform, with the outcomes of the programme. A seven-stage implementation guide is presented for use in a range of healthcare settings.
CONCLUSIONS
These findings describe an equity-informed, evidence-based approach that can be used by healthcare organizations to address common systems and individual-level barriers to implement perinatal depression and anxiety screening guidelines.
PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION
These results present strategies that were informed by prior research involving patients and staff from a large public antenatal clinic in Melbourne, Australia. This involved interviews with health professionals from the clinic such as midwives, obstetricians, perinatal mental health and refugee health experts and interpreters. Interviews were also conducted with women of refugee background who were attending the clinic for antenatal care. A steering committee was formed to facilitate the implementation of the perinatal mental health screening programme comprising staff from key hospital departments, GP liaison, refugee health and well-being, the NGO COPE and academic experts in psychology, midwifery, obstetrics and public health. This committee met fortnightly for 2 years to devise strategies to address the barriers, implement and evaluate the programme. A community advisory group was also formed that involved women from eight different countries, some of refugee background, who had recently given birth at the health service. This committee met bimonthly and was instrumental in planning the implementation and evaluation such as recruitment strategies, resources and facilitating an understanding of the cultural complexity of the women participating in the study.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35510587
doi: 10.1111/hex.13526
pmc: PMC9615047
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

2287-2298

Informations de copyright

© 2022 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Références

JAMA. 2016 Jan 26;315(4):388-406
pubmed: 26813212
BJOG. 2017 Apr;124(5):742-752
pubmed: 27320110
BMJ Open. 2014 Nov 14;4(11):e004883
pubmed: 25398675
BMJ. 2017 Mar 6;356:i6795
pubmed: 28264797
Implement Sci. 2011 Apr 23;6:42
pubmed: 21513547
Br J Psychiatry. 2017 May;210(5):315-323
pubmed: 28302701
Implement Sci. 2009 May 21;4:29
pubmed: 19460163
Women Birth. 2012 Sep;25(3):e37-43
pubmed: 21959041
Women Birth. 2020 May;33(3):e245-e255
pubmed: 31182352
Matern Child Health J. 2022 Apr;26(4):747-750
pubmed: 34181156
Med J Aust. 2007 Apr 2;186(7):364-7
pubmed: 17407434
Arch Womens Ment Health. 2017 Jun;20(3):449-462
pubmed: 28389934
Matern Child Health J. 2011 Apr;15(3):401-9
pubmed: 20300813
Implement Sci. 2016 Nov 18;11(1):150
pubmed: 27863498
Arch Womens Ment Health. 2013 Apr;16(2):117-22
pubmed: 23248004
Women Birth. 2020 Feb;33(1):51-59
pubmed: 30954483
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016 May 04;16:51
pubmed: 27145807
Br J Psychiatry. 1987 Jun;150:782-6
pubmed: 3651732
J Affect Disord. 2017 Sep;219:86-92
pubmed: 28531848
Women Birth. 2020 Sep;33(5):e429-e437
pubmed: 31759865
BMC Public Health. 2020 Feb 4;20(1):173
pubmed: 32019560
Implement Sci. 2012 Apr 24;7:37
pubmed: 22530986
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Apr 14;17(8):
pubmed: 32295106
Br J Gen Pract. 2019 Oct 31;69(688):e768-e776
pubmed: 31548296
Implement Sci. 2014 May 23;9:60
pubmed: 24886520
Matern Child Health J. 2019 Oct;23(10):1292-1298
pubmed: 31222600
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011 Jun 27;11:100
pubmed: 21707982
JMIR Res Protoc. 2019 Aug 19;8(8):e13271
pubmed: 31429411
Health Expect. 2022 Oct;25(5):2287-2298
pubmed: 35510587

Auteurs

Rebecca Blackmore (R)

Monash Centre for Health, Research and Implementation, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

Jacqueline A Boyle (JA)

Monash Centre for Health, Research and Implementation, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

Kylie M Gray (KM)

Centre for Educational Development, Appraisal and Research (CEDAR), Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Department of Psychiatry, School of Clinical Sciences, Centre for Developmental Psychiatry and Psychology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

Suzanne Willey (S)

Monash Centre for Health, Research and Implementation, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

Nicole Highet (N)

Centre of Perinatal Excellence (COPE), Melbourne, Australia.

Melanie Gibson-Helm (M)

Monash Centre for Health, Research and Implementation, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Centre for Women's Health Research, Te Tātai Hauora O Hine, Faculty of Health, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH