Better births – but why not better postnatal care?

National Health Service (NHS) organisations that provide maternity care in England are in the process of transforming local maternity systems (LMS) in response to the publication of ‘Better Births: Improving outcomes of maternity services in England. A Five Year Forward View for maternity care’ (NHS England, 2016). Since the report's publication, a series of initiatives have been launched across England to support local service providers to meet the ambition of ‘Better Births’, alongside similar initiatives for maternity care in Scotland and Wales

Diagnosis and management of perinatal depression and anxiety in general practice: a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies

BACKGROUND: Up to 20% of women experience anxiety and depression during the perinatal period. In the UK, management of perinatal mental health falls under the remit of GPs. AIM: This review aimed at synthesising the available information from qualitative studies on GPs' attitudes, recognition, and management of perinatal anxiety and depression. DESIGN AND SETTING: Meta-synthesis of the available published qualitative evidence on GPs' recognition and management of perinatal anxiety and depression. METHOD: A systematic search was conducted on Embase, Medline, PsycInfo, Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science, and grey literature was searched using Google, Google Scholar, and British Library EThOS. Papers and reports were eligible for inclusion if they reported qualitatively on GPs' diagnosis or treatment of perinatal anxiety or depression. The synthesis was constructed using meta-ethnography. RESULTS: Five themes were established from five eligible papers: labels: diagnosing depression; clinical judgement versus guidelines; care and management; use of medication; and isolation: the role of other professionals. GPs considered perinatal depression to be a psychosocial phenomenon, and were reluctant to label disorders and medicalise distress. GPs relied on their own clinical judgement more than guidelines. They reported helping patients make informed choices about treatment, and inviting them back regularly for GP visits. GPs sometimes felt isolated when dealing with perinatal mental health issues. CONCLUSION: GPs often do not have timely access to appropriate psychological therapies and use several strategies to mitigate this shortfall. Training must focus on these issues and must be evaluated to consider whether this makes a difference to outcomes for patients

Seeking help for perinatal psychological distress: a meta-synthesis of women's experiences

Background Women may not seek help for perinatal psychological distress, despite regular contact with primary care services. Barriers include ignorance of symptoms, inability to disclose distress, others’ attitudes, and cultural expectations. Much of the evidence has been obtained from North American populations and may not, therefore, extrapolate to the UK. Aim To understand the factors affecting women’s decision to seek help for perinatal distress. Design and setting Meta-synthesis of the available published qualitative evidence on UK women’s experiences of seeking help for perinatal distress. Method Systematic searches were conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Databases searched were PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, CINAHL, and Academic Search Complete. Searches of grey literature and references were also conducted. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported qualitative data on UK women’s experiences of perinatal distress and contact with healthcare professionals. The synthesis was conducted using meta-ethnography. Results In all, 24 studies were eligible for inclusion. Metasynthesis identified three main themes: identifying a problem, the influence of healthcare professionals, and stigma. These themes build on current understanding of help seeking by identifying the need for women to be able to frame their experience, for healthcare professionals to educate women about their roles, the need for continuity of care, and the way that being seen as a ‘bad mother’ causes women to self-silence. Conclusion Perinatal care provision needs to allow for continuity of care and for staff training that facilitates awareness of factors that influence women’s help seeking. Further research is required, particularly in relation to effective means of identifying perinatal psychological distress

Sociodemographic differences in symptom severity and duration among women referred to secondary care for menorrhagia in England and Wales: a cohort study from the National Heavy Menstrual Bleeding Audit.

OBJECTIVE: To examine symptom severity and duration at time of referral to secondary care for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) by socioeconomic deprivation, age and ethnicity DESIGN: Cohort analysis of data from the National HMB Audit linked to Hospital Episode Statistics data. SETTING: English and Welsh National Health Services (secondary care): February 2011 to January 2012. PARTICIPANTS: 15 325 women aged 18-60 years in England and Wales who had a new referral for HMB to a gynaecology outpatient department METHODS: Multivariable linear regression to calculate adjusted differences in mean symptom severity and quality of life scores at first outpatient visit. Multivariable logistic regression to calculate adjusted ORs. Adjustment for body mass index, parity and comorbidities. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean symptom severity score (0=best, 100=worst), mean condition-specific quality of life score (0=worst, 100=best) and symptom duration (≥1 year). RESULTS: Women were on average 42 years old and 12% reported minority ethnic backgrounds. Mean symptom severity and condition-specific quality of life scores were 61.8 and 34.7. Almost three-quarters of women (74%) reported having had symptoms for ≥1 year. Women from more deprived areas had more severe symptoms at their first outpatient visit (difference -6.1; 95% CI-7.2 to -4.9, between least and most deprived quintiles) and worse condition-specific quality of life (difference 6.3; 95% CI 5.1 to 7.5). Symptom severity declined with age while quality of life improved. CONCLUSIONS: Women living in more deprived areas reported more severe HMB symptoms and poorer quality of life at the start of treatment in secondary care. Providers should examine referral practices to explore if these differences reflect women's health-seeking behaviour or how providers decide whether or not to refer

Recognition and management of perinatal depression and anxiety by general practitioners: a systematic review

Background. Perinatal anxiety and depression are widespread, with up to 20% of women affected during pregnancy and after birth. In the UK, management of perinatal mental health falls under the remit of general practitioners (GPs). We reviewed the literature on GPs’ routine recognition, diagnosis and management of anxiety and depression in the perinatal period. Method. A systematic search of Embase, Medline, PsycInfo, Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science was conducted. Studies were eligible if they reported quantitative measures of GPs’ or Family Physicians’ assessment, recognition and management of anxiety or depression in pregnancy or post-partum. Results. Thirteen papers, reporting 10 studies, were identified from the United States, Australia, UK, Netherlands and Canada. All reported on depression; two included anxiety disorders. Reported awareness and ability to diagnose perinatal depression among GPs was high. GPs knew about and used screening tools in the UK but less so in US settings. Antidepressants were the first line of treatment, with various SSRIs considered safest. Counseling by GPs and referrals to specialists were common in the post-natal period, less so in pregnancy. Treatment choices were determined by resources, attitudes, knowledge and training. Conclusions. Data on GPs’ awareness and management of perinatal depression were sparse and unlikely to be generalizable. Future directions for research are proposed; such as exploring the management of anxiety disorders which are largely missing from the literature, and understanding more about barriers to disclosure and recognition in primary care. More standardized training could help to improve recognition and management practices

Conceptual framework on barriers and facilitators to implementing perinatal mental health care and treatment for women: the MATRIx evidence synthesis

Background: Perinatal mental health difficulties can occur during pregnancy or after birth and mental illness is a leading cause of maternal death. It is therefore important to identify the barriers and facilitators to implementing and accessing perinatal mental health care. Objectives: Our research objective was to develop a conceptual framework of barriers and facilitators to perinatal mental health care (defined as identification, assessment, care and treatment) to inform perinatal mental health services. Methods: Two systematic reviews were conducted to synthesise the evidence on: Review 1 barriers and facilitators to implementing perinatal mental health care; and Review 2 barriers to women accessing perinatal mental health care. Results were used to develop a conceptual framework which was then refined through consultations with stakeholders. Data sources: Pre-planned searches were conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo and CINAHL. Review 2 also included Scopus and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Review methods: In Review 1, studies were included if they examined barriers or facilitators to implementing perinatal mental health care. In Review 2, systematic reviews were included if they examined barriers and facilitators to women seeking help, accessing help and engaging in perinatal mental health care; and they used systematic search strategies. Only qualitative papers were identified from the searches. Results were analysed using thematic synthesis and themes were mapped on to a theoretically informed multi-level model then grouped to reflect different stages of the care pathway. Results: Review 1 included 46 studies. Most were carried out in higher income countries and evaluated as good quality with low risk of bias. Review 2 included 32 systematic reviews. Most were carried out in higher income countries and evaluated as having low confidence in the results. Barriers and facilitators to perinatal mental health care were identified at seven levels: Individual (e.g. beliefs about mental illness); Health professional (e.g. confidence addressing perinatal mental illness); Interpersonal (e.g. relationship between women and health professionals); Organisational (e.g. continuity of carer); Commissioner (e.g. referral pathways); Political (e.g. women’s economic status); and Societal (e.g. stigma). These factors impacted on perinatal mental health care at different stages of the care pathway. Results from reviews were synthesised to develop two MATRIx conceptual frameworks of the (1) barriers and (2) facilitators to perinatal mental health care. These provide pictorial representations of 66 barriers and 39 facilitators that intersect across the care pathway and at different levels. Limitations: In Review 1 only 10% of abstracts were double screened and 10% of included papers methodologically appraised by two reviewers. The majority of reviews included in Review 2 were evaluated as having low (n = 14) or critically low (n = 5) confidence in their results. Both reviews only included papers published in academic journals and written in English. Conclusions: The MATRIx frameworks highlight the complex interplay of individual and system level factors across different stages of the care pathway that influence women accessing perinatal mental health care and effective implementation of perinatal mental health services. Recommendations for health policy and practice: These include using the conceptual frameworks to inform comprehensive, strategic and evidence-based approaches to perinatal mental health care; ensuring care is easy to access and flexible; providing culturally sensitive care; adequate funding of services; and quality training for health professionals with protected time to do it. Future work: Further research is needed to examine access to perinatal mental health care for specific groups, such as fathers, immigrants or those in lower income countries. Trial registration: This trial is registered as PROSPERO: (R1) CRD42019142854; (R2) CRD42020193107. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR 128068) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 2. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information

Evaluation of perinatal anxiety assessment measures: a cognitive interview study

Background: Anxiety in pregnancy and postpartum is highly prevalent but under-recognised. To identify perinatal anxiety, assessment tools must be acceptable, relevant, and easy to use for women in the perinatal period. Methods: To determine the acceptability and ease of use of anxiety measures to pregnant or postpartum women (n = 41) we examined five versions of four measures: the Generalised Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD) 2-item and 7-item versions; Whooley questions; Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation (CORE-10); and Stirling Antenatal Anxiety Scale (SAAS). Cognitive interviews were used to examine ease of comprehension, judgement, retrieval and responding. Results: All measures were acceptable. Some items were deemed less relevant to the perinatal period e.g., difficulties sleeping. Ease of comprehension, judgement, retrieval and responding varied, with all measures having strengths and weaknesses. The SAAS and CORE-10 had the lowest mean number of problematic components. The GAD had the highest mean number of problematic components​. Non-binary response options were preferred. Preferences for time frames (e.g. one week, one month) varied. Qualitative data provides in-depth information on responses to each measure. Conclusions: Findings can be used to inform clinical guidelines and research on acceptable anxiety assessment in pregnancy and after birth

Women's experiences and views of routine assessment for anxiety in pregnancy and after birth: A qualitative study

Background: Anxiety in pregnancy and postnatally is highly prevalent but under‐recognized. To identify perinatal anxiety, assessment tools must be acceptable to women who are pregnant or postnatal. Methods: A qualitative study of women's experiences of anxiety and mental health assessment during pregnancy and after birth and views on the acceptability of perinatal anxiety assessment. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 41 pregnant or postnatal women. Results were analysed using Sekhon et al.'s acceptability framework, as well as inductive coding of new or emergent themes. Results: Women's perceptions of routine assessment for perinatal anxiety were generally favourable. Most participants thought assessment was needed and that the benefits outweighed potential negative impacts, such as unnecessary referrals to specialist services. Six themes were identified of: (1) Raising awareness; (2) Improving support; (3) Surveillance and stigma; (4) Gatekeeping; (5) Personalized care and (6) Trust. Assessment was seen as a tool for raising awareness about mental health during the perinatal period and a mechanism for normalizing discussions about mental health more generally. However, views on questionnaire assessments themselves were mixed, with some participants feeling they could become an administrative ‘tick box’ exercise that depersonalizes care and does not provide a space to discuss mental health problems. Conclusion: Routine assessment of perinatal anxiety was generally viewed as positive and acceptable; however, this was qualified by the extent to which it was informed and personalized as a process. Approaches to assessment should ideally be flexible, tailored across the perinatal period and embedded in continuity of care

Acceptability of identification and management of perinatal anxiety: a qualitative interview study with postnatal women

Background: Anxiety in pregnancy and postpartum is highly prevalent but under-recognized and few women receive adequate support or treatment. Identification and management of perinatal anxiety must be acceptable to women in the perinatal period to ensure that women receive appropriate care when needed. We aimed to understand the acceptability to women of how anxiety was identified and managed by healthcare professionals.Method: We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with 60 women across England and Scotland approximately 10 months after birth. Women were sampled from an existing systematically recruited cohort of 2,243 women who recorded mental health throughout pregnancy and after birth. All women met criteria for further assessment of their mental health by a healthcare professional. We analyzed the data using a theoretical framework of acceptability of healthcare interventions.Results: Interview data fitted the seven constructs within the theoretical framework of acceptability. Women valued supp

Assessment of perinatal anxiety: diagnostic accuracy of five measures

Background Anxiety in pregnancy and after giving birth (the perinatal period) is highly prevalent but under-recognised. Robust methods of assessing perinatal anxiety are essential for services to identify and treat women appropriately. Aims To determine which assessment measures are most psychometrically robust and effective at identifying women with perinatal anxiety (primary objective) and depression (secondary objective). Method We conducted a prospective longitudinal cohort study of 2243 women who completed five measures of anxiety and depression (Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD) two- and seven-item versions; Whooley questions; Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation (CORE-10); and Stirling Antenatal Anxiety Scale (SAAS)) during pregnancy (15 weeks, 22 weeks and 31 weeks) and after birth (6 weeks). To assess diagnostic accuracy a sample of 403 participants completed modules of the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). Results The best diagnostic accuracy for anxiety was shown by the CORE-10 and SAAS. The best diagnostic accuracy for depression was shown by the CORE-10, SAAS and Whooley questions, although the SAAS had lower specificity. The same cut-off scores for each measure were optimal for identifying anxiety or depression (SAAS ≥9; CORE-10 ≥9; Whooley ≥1). All measures were psychometrically robust, with good internal consistency, convergent validity and unidimensional factor structure. Conclusions This study identified robust and effective methods of assessing perinatal anxiety and depression. We recommend using the CORE-10 or SAAS to assess perinatal anxiety and the CORE-10 or Whooley questions to assess depression. The GAD-2 and GAD-7 did not perform as well as other measures and optimal cut-offs were lower than currently recommended