Cargando…
Comparing the feasibility, acceptability, clinical-, and cost-effectiveness of mental health e-screening to paper-based screening on the detection of depression, anxiety, and psychosocial risk in pregnant women: a study protocol of a randomized, parallel-group, superiority trial
BACKGROUND: Stress, depression, and anxiety affect 15% to 25% of pregnant women. However, substantial barriers to psychosocial assessment exist, resulting in less than 20% of prenatal care providers assessing and treating mental health problems. Moreover, pregnant women are often reluctant to disclo...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3892094/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24383441 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-3 |
_version_ | 1782299464046739456 |
---|---|
author | Kingston, Dawn McDonald, Sheila Biringer, Anne Austin, Marie-Paule Hegadoren, Kathy McDonald, Sarah Giallo, Rebecca Ohinmaa, Arto Lasiuk, Gerri MacQueen, Glenda Sword, Wendy Lane-Smith, Marie van Zanten, Sander Veldhuyzen |
author_facet | Kingston, Dawn McDonald, Sheila Biringer, Anne Austin, Marie-Paule Hegadoren, Kathy McDonald, Sarah Giallo, Rebecca Ohinmaa, Arto Lasiuk, Gerri MacQueen, Glenda Sword, Wendy Lane-Smith, Marie van Zanten, Sander Veldhuyzen |
author_sort | Kingston, Dawn |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Stress, depression, and anxiety affect 15% to 25% of pregnant women. However, substantial barriers to psychosocial assessment exist, resulting in less than 20% of prenatal care providers assessing and treating mental health problems. Moreover, pregnant women are often reluctant to disclose their mental health concerns to a healthcare provider. Identifying screening and assessment tools and procedures that are acceptable to both women and service providers, cost-effective, and clinically useful is needed. METHODS/DESIGN: The primary objective of this randomized, parallel-group, superiority trial is to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a computer tablet-based prenatal psychosocial assessment (e-screening) compared to paper-based screening. Secondary objectives are to compare the two modes of screening on: (1) the level of detection of prenatal depression and anxiety symptoms and psychosocial risk; (2) the level of disclosure of symptoms; (3) the factors associated with feasibility, acceptability, and disclosure; (4) the psychometric properties of the e-version of the assessment tools; and (5) cost-effectiveness. A sample of 542 women will be recruited from large, primary care maternity clinics and a high-risk antenatal unit in an urban Canadian city. Pregnant women are eligible to participate if they: (1) receive care at one of the recruitment sites; (2) are able to speak/read English; (3) are willing to be randomized to e-screening; and (4) are willing to participate in a follow-up diagnostic interview within 1 week of recruitment. Allocation is by computer-generated randomization. Women in the intervention group will complete an online psychosocial assessment on a computer tablet, while those in the control group will complete the same assessment in paper-based form. All women will complete baseline questionnaires at the time of recruitment and will participate in a diagnostic interview within 1 week of recruitment. Research assistants conducting diagnostic interviews and physicians will be blinded. A qualitative descriptive study involving healthcare providers from the recruitment sites and women will provide data on feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. We hypothesize that mental health e-screening in primary care maternity settings and high-risk antenatal units will be as or more feasible, acceptable, and capable of detecting depression, anxiety, and psychosocial risk compared to paper-based screening. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01899534. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3892094 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-38920942014-01-15 Comparing the feasibility, acceptability, clinical-, and cost-effectiveness of mental health e-screening to paper-based screening on the detection of depression, anxiety, and psychosocial risk in pregnant women: a study protocol of a randomized, parallel-group, superiority trial Kingston, Dawn McDonald, Sheila Biringer, Anne Austin, Marie-Paule Hegadoren, Kathy McDonald, Sarah Giallo, Rebecca Ohinmaa, Arto Lasiuk, Gerri MacQueen, Glenda Sword, Wendy Lane-Smith, Marie van Zanten, Sander Veldhuyzen Trials Study Protocol BACKGROUND: Stress, depression, and anxiety affect 15% to 25% of pregnant women. However, substantial barriers to psychosocial assessment exist, resulting in less than 20% of prenatal care providers assessing and treating mental health problems. Moreover, pregnant women are often reluctant to disclose their mental health concerns to a healthcare provider. Identifying screening and assessment tools and procedures that are acceptable to both women and service providers, cost-effective, and clinically useful is needed. METHODS/DESIGN: The primary objective of this randomized, parallel-group, superiority trial is to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a computer tablet-based prenatal psychosocial assessment (e-screening) compared to paper-based screening. Secondary objectives are to compare the two modes of screening on: (1) the level of detection of prenatal depression and anxiety symptoms and psychosocial risk; (2) the level of disclosure of symptoms; (3) the factors associated with feasibility, acceptability, and disclosure; (4) the psychometric properties of the e-version of the assessment tools; and (5) cost-effectiveness. A sample of 542 women will be recruited from large, primary care maternity clinics and a high-risk antenatal unit in an urban Canadian city. Pregnant women are eligible to participate if they: (1) receive care at one of the recruitment sites; (2) are able to speak/read English; (3) are willing to be randomized to e-screening; and (4) are willing to participate in a follow-up diagnostic interview within 1 week of recruitment. Allocation is by computer-generated randomization. Women in the intervention group will complete an online psychosocial assessment on a computer tablet, while those in the control group will complete the same assessment in paper-based form. All women will complete baseline questionnaires at the time of recruitment and will participate in a diagnostic interview within 1 week of recruitment. Research assistants conducting diagnostic interviews and physicians will be blinded. A qualitative descriptive study involving healthcare providers from the recruitment sites and women will provide data on feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. We hypothesize that mental health e-screening in primary care maternity settings and high-risk antenatal units will be as or more feasible, acceptable, and capable of detecting depression, anxiety, and psychosocial risk compared to paper-based screening. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01899534. BioMed Central 2014-01-02 /pmc/articles/PMC3892094/ /pubmed/24383441 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-3 Text en Copyright © 2014 Kingston et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Study Protocol Kingston, Dawn McDonald, Sheila Biringer, Anne Austin, Marie-Paule Hegadoren, Kathy McDonald, Sarah Giallo, Rebecca Ohinmaa, Arto Lasiuk, Gerri MacQueen, Glenda Sword, Wendy Lane-Smith, Marie van Zanten, Sander Veldhuyzen Comparing the feasibility, acceptability, clinical-, and cost-effectiveness of mental health e-screening to paper-based screening on the detection of depression, anxiety, and psychosocial risk in pregnant women: a study protocol of a randomized, parallel-group, superiority trial |
title | Comparing the feasibility, acceptability, clinical-, and cost-effectiveness of mental health e-screening to paper-based screening on the detection of depression, anxiety, and psychosocial risk in pregnant women: a study protocol of a randomized, parallel-group, superiority trial |
title_full | Comparing the feasibility, acceptability, clinical-, and cost-effectiveness of mental health e-screening to paper-based screening on the detection of depression, anxiety, and psychosocial risk in pregnant women: a study protocol of a randomized, parallel-group, superiority trial |
title_fullStr | Comparing the feasibility, acceptability, clinical-, and cost-effectiveness of mental health e-screening to paper-based screening on the detection of depression, anxiety, and psychosocial risk in pregnant women: a study protocol of a randomized, parallel-group, superiority trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparing the feasibility, acceptability, clinical-, and cost-effectiveness of mental health e-screening to paper-based screening on the detection of depression, anxiety, and psychosocial risk in pregnant women: a study protocol of a randomized, parallel-group, superiority trial |
title_short | Comparing the feasibility, acceptability, clinical-, and cost-effectiveness of mental health e-screening to paper-based screening on the detection of depression, anxiety, and psychosocial risk in pregnant women: a study protocol of a randomized, parallel-group, superiority trial |
title_sort | comparing the feasibility, acceptability, clinical-, and cost-effectiveness of mental health e-screening to paper-based screening on the detection of depression, anxiety, and psychosocial risk in pregnant women: a study protocol of a randomized, parallel-group, superiority trial |
topic | Study Protocol |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3892094/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24383441 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kingstondawn comparingthefeasibilityacceptabilityclinicalandcosteffectivenessofmentalhealthescreeningtopaperbasedscreeningonthedetectionofdepressionanxietyandpsychosocialriskinpregnantwomenastudyprotocolofarandomizedparallelgroupsuperioritytrial AT mcdonaldsheila comparingthefeasibilityacceptabilityclinicalandcosteffectivenessofmentalhealthescreeningtopaperbasedscreeningonthedetectionofdepressionanxietyandpsychosocialriskinpregnantwomenastudyprotocolofarandomizedparallelgroupsuperioritytrial AT biringeranne comparingthefeasibilityacceptabilityclinicalandcosteffectivenessofmentalhealthescreeningtopaperbasedscreeningonthedetectionofdepressionanxietyandpsychosocialriskinpregnantwomenastudyprotocolofarandomizedparallelgroupsuperioritytrial AT austinmariepaule comparingthefeasibilityacceptabilityclinicalandcosteffectivenessofmentalhealthescreeningtopaperbasedscreeningonthedetectionofdepressionanxietyandpsychosocialriskinpregnantwomenastudyprotocolofarandomizedparallelgroupsuperioritytrial AT hegadorenkathy comparingthefeasibilityacceptabilityclinicalandcosteffectivenessofmentalhealthescreeningtopaperbasedscreeningonthedetectionofdepressionanxietyandpsychosocialriskinpregnantwomenastudyprotocolofarandomizedparallelgroupsuperioritytrial AT mcdonaldsarah comparingthefeasibilityacceptabilityclinicalandcosteffectivenessofmentalhealthescreeningtopaperbasedscreeningonthedetectionofdepressionanxietyandpsychosocialriskinpregnantwomenastudyprotocolofarandomizedparallelgroupsuperioritytrial AT giallorebecca comparingthefeasibilityacceptabilityclinicalandcosteffectivenessofmentalhealthescreeningtopaperbasedscreeningonthedetectionofdepressionanxietyandpsychosocialriskinpregnantwomenastudyprotocolofarandomizedparallelgroupsuperioritytrial AT ohinmaaarto comparingthefeasibilityacceptabilityclinicalandcosteffectivenessofmentalhealthescreeningtopaperbasedscreeningonthedetectionofdepressionanxietyandpsychosocialriskinpregnantwomenastudyprotocolofarandomizedparallelgroupsuperioritytrial AT lasiukgerri comparingthefeasibilityacceptabilityclinicalandcosteffectivenessofmentalhealthescreeningtopaperbasedscreeningonthedetectionofdepressionanxietyandpsychosocialriskinpregnantwomenastudyprotocolofarandomizedparallelgroupsuperioritytrial AT macqueenglenda comparingthefeasibilityacceptabilityclinicalandcosteffectivenessofmentalhealthescreeningtopaperbasedscreeningonthedetectionofdepressionanxietyandpsychosocialriskinpregnantwomenastudyprotocolofarandomizedparallelgroupsuperioritytrial AT swordwendy comparingthefeasibilityacceptabilityclinicalandcosteffectivenessofmentalhealthescreeningtopaperbasedscreeningonthedetectionofdepressionanxietyandpsychosocialriskinpregnantwomenastudyprotocolofarandomizedparallelgroupsuperioritytrial AT lanesmithmarie comparingthefeasibilityacceptabilityclinicalandcosteffectivenessofmentalhealthescreeningtopaperbasedscreeningonthedetectionofdepressionanxietyandpsychosocialriskinpregnantwomenastudyprotocolofarandomizedparallelgroupsuperioritytrial AT vanzantensanderveldhuyzen comparingthefeasibilityacceptabilityclinicalandcosteffectivenessofmentalhealthescreeningtopaperbasedscreeningonthedetectionofdepressionanxietyandpsychosocialriskinpregnantwomenastudyprotocolofarandomizedparallelgroupsuperioritytrial |