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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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