ERA

Download the full-sized PDF of 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.Download the full-sized PDF

Analytics

Share

Permanent link (DOI): https://doi.org/10.7939/R3J678X1F

Download

Export to: EndNote  |  Zotero  |  Mendeley

Communities

This file is in the following communities:

Nursing, Faculty of

Collections

This file is in the following collections:

Chronicity
Health Equity

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. Open Access

Descriptions

Author or creator
Kingston, D.
McDonald, S.
Biringer, A.
Austin, M.
Hegadoren, K.
Giallo, R.
Ohinmaa, A.
Lasiuk, G.
MacQueen, G.
Sword, W.
Lane-Smith, M.
van Zanten, S.
Additional contributors
Subject/Keyword
anxiety
randomized controlled trials
psychosocial assessments
depression
online screenings
pregnancy
Type of item
Journal Article (Published)
Language
English
Place
Time
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.
Date created
2014
DOI
doi:10.7939/R3J678X1F
License information
Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 3.0 Unported
Rights

Citation for previous publication
Kingston, D., McDonald, S., Biringer, A., Austin, M., Hegadoren, K., McDonald, S., Giallo, R., Ohinmaa, A., Lasiuk, G., MacQueen, G., Sword, W., Lane-Smith, M., ... & van Zanten, S. (2014). 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. Trials, 15(3).
Source
Link to related item

File Details

Date Uploaded
Date Modified
2014-05-06T17:18:18.988+00:00
Audit Status
Audits have not yet been run on this file.
Characterization
File format: pdf (Portable Document Format)
Mime type: application/pdf
File size: 576217
Last modified: 2015:10:12 21:21:59-06:00
Filename: T_2014_15_3.pdf
Original checksum: 32835ddbe56ffa136dcd16e41f11fc8f
Well formed: false
Valid: false
Status message: Invalid Resources Entry in document offset=4465
Status message: Invalid Resources Entry in document offset=4465
Status message: Invalid Annotation list offset=4465
Status message: Invalid outline dictionary item offset=554280
Activity of users you follow
User Activity Date