Supporting perinatal anxiety in the digital age; a qualitative exploration of stressors and support strategies

Background The period surrounding childbirth is one of profound change, which can often be experienced as stressful and overwhelming. Indeed, around 20% of women may experience significant levels of anxiety in the perinatal period. However, most women experiencing perinatal anxiety (PNA) go unrecognised and untreated. The Internet offers a potentially scalable solution to improve access to support, however a dearth of research in this area means that work is needed to better understand women’s experience of PNA, so that potential targets for intervention can be identified and possible barriers to support overcome. This study aimed to qualitatively explore women’s experience of anxiety triggers and support in the perinatal period; and gain insight into what online support is acceptable for women with PNA. Methods Women who were either pregnant or within one-year postpartum were invited to participate in focus groups across the UK. Focus groups were used to allow a diversity of perspectives to be heard, while simultaneously promoting the identification and prioritisation of important support needs and solutions. Interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed. Results Five key themes emerged in relation to women’s experience with PNA: holding unrealistic expectations of birth and motherhood; stigma; the importance of peer support; uncertainty and poor maternal confidence; and a lack of mental health support and knowledge. Perinatal women felt under-supported and poorly prepared for motherhood. A mismatch between their expectations and the reality of their experience, alongside a pressure to be the ‘perfect mum’ was the primary source of their anxiety. Furthermore, stigma associated with PNA may have exacerbated these issues and led to help-seeking avoidance. Overall, women felt these issues could be addressed via online support, through the delivery of more realistic information, providing psychoeducation about PNA symptoms and management, and the inclusion of authentic peer experiences. Thus, delivering evidence-based information and interventions online may provide a solution that is acceptable to this cohort. Conclusions This work provides unique insight into potential sources of anxiety for women in the perinatal period, while also offering potential internet-based support solutions that are likely to be acceptable and helpful for women with PNA

Meta-analysis of the relation between European and American smokeless tobacco and oral cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Smokeless tobacco is often referred to as a major contributor to oral cancer. In some regions, especially Southeast Asia, the risk is difficult to quantify due to the variety of products, compositions (including non-tobacco ingredients) and usage practices involved. In Western populations, the evidence of an increased risk in smokeless tobacco users seems unclear, previous reviews having reached somewhat differing conclusions. We report a detailed quantitative review of the evidence in American and European smokeless tobacco users, and compare our findings with previous reviews and meta-analyses.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Following literature review a meta-analysis was conducted of 32 epidemiological studies published between 1920 and 2005 including tests for homogeneity and publication bias.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Based on 38 heterogeneous study-specific estimates of the odds ratio or relative risk for smokeless tobacco use, the random-effects estimate was 1.87 (95% confidence interval 1.40–2.48). The increase was mainly evident in studies conducted before 1980. No increase was seen in studies in Scandinavia. Restricting attention to the seven estimates adjusted for smoking and alcohol eliminated both heterogeneity and excess risk (1.02; 0.82–1.28). Estimates also varied by sex (higher in females) and by study design (higher in case-control studies with hospital controls) but more clearly in studies where estimates were unadjusted, even for age. The pattern of estimates suggests some publication bias. Based on limited data specific to never smokers, the random-effects estimate was 1.94 (0.88–4.28), the eight individual estimates being heterogeneous and based on few exposed cases.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Smokeless tobacco, as used in America or Europe, carries at most a minor increased risk of oral cancer. However, elevated risks in specific populations or from specific products cannot definitely be excluded.</p