Systematic Review of Barriers to and Facilitators of Screening for Postpartum Depression at Well-Child Visits in the United States

Marcy Hanson, Tracy Hellem, Julie Alexander-Ruff, Sophia R. Newcomer
{"title":"Systematic Review of Barriers to and Facilitators of Screening for Postpartum Depression at Well-Child Visits in the United States","authors":"Marcy Hanson,&nbsp;Tracy Hellem,&nbsp;Julie Alexander-Ruff,&nbsp;Sophia R. Newcomer","doi":"10.1016/j.nwh.2023.11.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To identify and evaluate barriers to and facilitators of screening for postpartum depression (PPD) during well-child visits in the United States. Additionally, to describe prior work on PPD screening tool evaluation and outcomes from PPD screenings conducted within the well-child setting.</p></div><div><h3>Data Sources</h3><p>A systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Five databases (Pub Med, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library) were searched.</p></div><div><h3>Study Selection</h3><p>Randomized controlled trials, case studies, cross-sectional studies, case–control studies, cohort studies, qualitative studies, and quasi-experimental studies conducted in the United States were included. The Standard Quality Assessment Criteria Tool (QualSyst) was used to assess the methodologic quality of each included study.</p></div><div><h3>Data Extraction</h3><p>Sample, setting, methods, screening tools used, location of study setting, intervention, and salient findings were extracted and summarized for further analysis and synthesis.</p></div><div><h3>Data Synthesis</h3><p>Quantitative studies were rated on 14 aspects, and qualitative studies were rated on 10 aspects, per QualSyst. Studies received a score of 2, 1, 0, or not applicable based on scoring criteria, with higher scores indicating greater methodologic quality.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>We found that barriers to PPD screening included concerns regarding time for screening, adequate training, and limited ability for referral. Facilitators of PPD screening included electronic prompts for providers, as well as tool availability and familiarity. Our results indicate that education and training about PPD screening in the pediatric setting are important next steps in addressing the rising concern of PPD in the United States.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":39985,"journal":{"name":"Nursing for Women''s Health","volume":"28 3","pages":"Pages 213-221"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing for Women''s Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751485124000412","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To identify and evaluate barriers to and facilitators of screening for postpartum depression (PPD) during well-child visits in the United States. Additionally, to describe prior work on PPD screening tool evaluation and outcomes from PPD screenings conducted within the well-child setting.

Data Sources

A systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Five databases (Pub Med, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library) were searched.

Study Selection

Randomized controlled trials, case studies, cross-sectional studies, case–control studies, cohort studies, qualitative studies, and quasi-experimental studies conducted in the United States were included. The Standard Quality Assessment Criteria Tool (QualSyst) was used to assess the methodologic quality of each included study.

Data Extraction

Sample, setting, methods, screening tools used, location of study setting, intervention, and salient findings were extracted and summarized for further analysis and synthesis.

Data Synthesis

Quantitative studies were rated on 14 aspects, and qualitative studies were rated on 10 aspects, per QualSyst. Studies received a score of 2, 1, 0, or not applicable based on scoring criteria, with higher scores indicating greater methodologic quality.

Conclusion

We found that barriers to PPD screening included concerns regarding time for screening, adequate training, and limited ability for referral. Facilitators of PPD screening included electronic prompts for providers, as well as tool availability and familiarity. Our results indicate that education and training about PPD screening in the pediatric setting are important next steps in addressing the rising concern of PPD in the United States.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国产后抑郁症筛查的障碍和促进因素系统回顾》(Systematic Review of Barriers to and Facilitators of Screening for Postpartum Depression at Well-Child Visits in the United States)。
目的:确定并评估在美国儿童健康检查中筛查产后抑郁症(PPD)的障碍和促进因素。此外,还将介绍此前有关产后抑郁筛查工具评估的工作,以及在健康儿童环境中进行产后抑郁筛查的结果:根据《系统综述和元分析首选报告项目》(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses,PRISMA)指南进行了系统综述。检索了五个数据库(Pub Med、PsycINFO、Web of Science、CINAHL 和 Cochrane Library):纳入了在美国进行的随机对照试验、病例研究、横断面研究、病例对照研究、队列研究、定性研究和准实验研究。标准质量评估标准工具(QualSyst)用于评估每项纳入研究的方法学质量:数据提取:提取样本、研究环境、方法、使用的筛选工具、研究环境地点、干预措施以及突出的研究结果,并进行总结,以便进一步分析和综合:根据 QualSyst,定量研究从 14 个方面进行评分,定性研究从 10 个方面进行评分。根据评分标准,研究分为 2 分、1 分、0 分或不适用,分数越高,表明方法学质量越高:我们发现,PPD 筛查的障碍包括对筛查时间、充分培训和转诊能力有限的担忧。促进 PPD 筛查的因素包括提供者的电子提示以及工具的可用性和熟悉程度。我们的研究结果表明,在儿科环境中开展有关 PPD 筛查的教育和培训是解决美国日益严重的 PPD 问题的下一个重要步骤。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Nursing for Women''s Health
Nursing for Women''s Health Nursing-Nursing (all)
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
90
期刊介绍: Nursing for Women"s Health publishes the most recent and compelling health care information on women"s health, newborn care and professional nursing issues. As a refereed, clinical practice journal, it provides professionals involved in providing optimum nursing care for women and their newborns with health care trends and everyday issues in a concise, practical, and easy-to-read format.
期刊最新文献
Perceptions of Screening Women for Intimate Partner Violence Among Health Care Providers in Thailand. A Guide to Successfully Publishing a Clinical Practice Manuscript. Evaluation of a Menstrual Hygiene Education Program for Adolescent Girls in Rural India. The Experiences of Pregnancy Among Adolescent Girls in Jordan. Implementation of Genetic Carrier Screening at Gynecologic-Related Visits.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1