Perinatal mental health services in pregnancy and the year after birth: the ESMI research programme including RCT

L. Howard, K. M. Abel, Katie H. Atmore, D. Bick, A. Bye, S. Byford, L. Carson, C. Dolman, M. Heslin, M. Hunter, S. Jennings, Sonia Johnson, I. Jones, B. Taylor, Rebecca McDonald, J. Milgrom, N. Morant, S. Nath, S. Pawlby, L. Potts, C. Powell, D. Rose, E. Ryan, G. Seneviratne, R. Shallcross, N. Stanley, K. Trevillion, A. Wieck, A. Pickles
{"title":"Perinatal mental health services in pregnancy and the year after birth: the ESMI research programme including RCT","authors":"L. Howard, K. M. Abel, Katie H. Atmore, D. Bick, A. Bye, S. Byford, L. Carson, C. Dolman, M. Heslin, M. Hunter, S. Jennings, Sonia Johnson, I. Jones, B. Taylor, Rebecca McDonald, J. Milgrom, N. Morant, S. Nath, S. Pawlby, L. Potts, C. Powell, D. Rose, E. Ryan, G. Seneviratne, R. Shallcross, N. Stanley, K. Trevillion, A. Wieck, A. Pickles","doi":"10.3310/ccht9881","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n It is unclear how best to identify and treat women with mental disorders in pregnancy and the year after birth (i.e. the perinatal period).\n \n \n \n (1) To investigate how best to identify depression at antenatal booking [work package (WP) 1]. (2) To estimate the prevalence of mental disorders in early pregnancy (WP1). (3) To develop and examine the efficacy of a guided self-help intervention for mild to moderate antenatal depression delivered by psychological well-being practitioners (WP1). (4) To examine the psychometric properties of the perinatal VOICE (Views On Inpatient CarE) measure of service satisfaction (WP3). (5) To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of services for women with acute severe postnatal mental disorders (WPs 1–3). (6) To investigate women’s and partners’/significant others’ experiences of different types of care (WP2).\n \n \n \n Objectives 1 and 2 – a cross-sectional survey stratified by response to Whooley depression screening questions. Objective 3 – an exploratory randomised controlled trial. Objective 4 – an exploratory factor analysis, including test–retest reliability and validity assessed by association with the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire contemporaneous satisfaction scores. Objective 5 – an observational cohort study using propensity scores for the main analysis and instrumental variable analysis using geographical distance to mother and baby unit. Objective 6 – a qualitative study.\n \n \n \n English maternity services and generic and specialist mental health services for pregnant and postnatal women.\n \n \n \n Staff and users of mental health and maternity services.\n \n \n \n Guided self-help, mother and baby units and generic care.\n \n \n \n The following measures were evaluated in WP1(i) – specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value, likelihood ratio, acceptability and population prevalence estimates. The following measures were evaluated in WP1(ii) – participant recruitment rate, attrition and adverse events. The following measure was evaluated in WP2 – experiences of care. The following measures were evaluated in WP3 – psychometric indices for perinatal VOICE and the proportion of participants readmitted to acute care in the year after discharge.\n \n \n \n WP1(i) – the population prevalence estimate was 11% (95% confidence interval 8% to 14%) for depression and 27% (95% confidence interval 22% to 32%) for any mental disorder in early pregnancy. The diagnostic accuracy of two depression screening questions was as follows: a weighted sensitivity of 0.41, a specificity of 0.95, a positive predictive value of 0.45, a negative predictive value of 0.93 and a likelihood ratio (positive) of 8.2. For the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, the diagnostic accuracy was as follows: a weighted sensitivity of 0.59, a specificity of 0.94, a positive predictive value of 0.52, a negative predictive value of 0.95 and a likelihood ratio (positive) of 9.8. Most women reported that asking about depression at the antenatal booking appointment was acceptable, although this was reported as being less acceptable for women with mental disorders and/or experiences of abuse. Cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that both the Whooley depression screening questions and the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale were more cost-effective than with the Whooley depression screening questions followed by the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale or no-screen option. WP1(ii) – 53 women with depression in pregnancy were randomised. Twenty-six women received modified guided self-help [with 18 (69%) women attending four or more sessions] and 27 women received usual care. Three women were lost to follow-up (follow-up for primary outcome: 92%). At 14 weeks post randomisation, women receiving guided self-help reported fewer depressive symptoms than women receiving usual care (adjusted effect size −0.64, 95% confidence interval −1.30 to 0.06). Costs and quality-adjusted life-years were similar, resulting in a 50% probability of guided self-help being cost-effective compared with usual care at National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost per quality-adjusted life-year thresholds. The slow recruitment rate means that a future definitive larger trial is not feasible. WP2 – qualitative findings indicate that women valued clinicians with specialist perinatal expertise across all services, but for some women generic services were able to provide better continuity of care. Involvement of family members and care post discharge from acute services were perceived as poor across services, but there was also ambivalence among some women about increasing family involvement because of a complex range of factors. WP3(i) – for the perinatal VOICE, measures from exploratory factor analysis suggested that two factors gave an adequate fit (comparative fit index = 0.97). Items loading on these two dimensions were (1) those concerning aspects of the service relating to the care of the mother and (2) those relating to care of the baby. The factors were positively correlated (0.49; p < 0.0001). Total scores were strongly associated with service (with higher satisfaction for mother and baby units, 2 degrees of freedom; p < 0.0001) and with the ‘gold standard’ Client Service Questionnaire total score (test–retest intraclass correlation coefficient 0.784, 95% confidence interval 0.643 to 0.924; p < 0.0001). WP3(ii) – 263 of 279 women could be included in the primary analysis, which shows that the odds of being readmitted to acute care was 0.95 times higher for women who were admitted to a mother and baby unit than for those not admitted to a mother and baby unit (0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.04; p = 0.29). Sensitivity analysis using an instrumental variable found a markedly more significant effect of admission to mother and baby units (p < 0.001) than the primary analysis. Mother and baby units were not found to be cost-effective at 1 month post discharge because of the costs of care in a mother and baby unit. Cost-effectiveness advantages may exist if the cost of mother and baby units is offset by savings from reduced readmissions in the longer term.\n \n \n \n Policy and service changes had an impact on recruitment. In observational studies, residual confounding is likely.\n \n \n \n Services adapted for the perinatal period are highly valued by women and may be more effective than generic services. Mother and baby units have a low probability of being cost-effective in the short term, although this may vary in the longer term.\n \n \n \n Future work should include examination of how to reduce relapses, including in after-care following discharge, and how better to involve family members.\n \n \n \n This trial is registered as ISRCTN83768230 and as study registration UKCRN ID 16403.\n \n \n \n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 10, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\n","PeriodicalId":32307,"journal":{"name":"Programme Grants for Applied Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Programme Grants for Applied Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/ccht9881","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

It is unclear how best to identify and treat women with mental disorders in pregnancy and the year after birth (i.e. the perinatal period). (1) To investigate how best to identify depression at antenatal booking [work package (WP) 1]. (2) To estimate the prevalence of mental disorders in early pregnancy (WP1). (3) To develop and examine the efficacy of a guided self-help intervention for mild to moderate antenatal depression delivered by psychological well-being practitioners (WP1). (4) To examine the psychometric properties of the perinatal VOICE (Views On Inpatient CarE) measure of service satisfaction (WP3). (5) To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of services for women with acute severe postnatal mental disorders (WPs 1–3). (6) To investigate women’s and partners’/significant others’ experiences of different types of care (WP2). Objectives 1 and 2 – a cross-sectional survey stratified by response to Whooley depression screening questions. Objective 3 – an exploratory randomised controlled trial. Objective 4 – an exploratory factor analysis, including test–retest reliability and validity assessed by association with the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire contemporaneous satisfaction scores. Objective 5 – an observational cohort study using propensity scores for the main analysis and instrumental variable analysis using geographical distance to mother and baby unit. Objective 6 – a qualitative study. English maternity services and generic and specialist mental health services for pregnant and postnatal women. Staff and users of mental health and maternity services. Guided self-help, mother and baby units and generic care. The following measures were evaluated in WP1(i) – specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value, likelihood ratio, acceptability and population prevalence estimates. The following measures were evaluated in WP1(ii) – participant recruitment rate, attrition and adverse events. The following measure was evaluated in WP2 – experiences of care. The following measures were evaluated in WP3 – psychometric indices for perinatal VOICE and the proportion of participants readmitted to acute care in the year after discharge. WP1(i) – the population prevalence estimate was 11% (95% confidence interval 8% to 14%) for depression and 27% (95% confidence interval 22% to 32%) for any mental disorder in early pregnancy. The diagnostic accuracy of two depression screening questions was as follows: a weighted sensitivity of 0.41, a specificity of 0.95, a positive predictive value of 0.45, a negative predictive value of 0.93 and a likelihood ratio (positive) of 8.2. For the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, the diagnostic accuracy was as follows: a weighted sensitivity of 0.59, a specificity of 0.94, a positive predictive value of 0.52, a negative predictive value of 0.95 and a likelihood ratio (positive) of 9.8. Most women reported that asking about depression at the antenatal booking appointment was acceptable, although this was reported as being less acceptable for women with mental disorders and/or experiences of abuse. Cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that both the Whooley depression screening questions and the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale were more cost-effective than with the Whooley depression screening questions followed by the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale or no-screen option. WP1(ii) – 53 women with depression in pregnancy were randomised. Twenty-six women received modified guided self-help [with 18 (69%) women attending four or more sessions] and 27 women received usual care. Three women were lost to follow-up (follow-up for primary outcome: 92%). At 14 weeks post randomisation, women receiving guided self-help reported fewer depressive symptoms than women receiving usual care (adjusted effect size −0.64, 95% confidence interval −1.30 to 0.06). Costs and quality-adjusted life-years were similar, resulting in a 50% probability of guided self-help being cost-effective compared with usual care at National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost per quality-adjusted life-year thresholds. The slow recruitment rate means that a future definitive larger trial is not feasible. WP2 – qualitative findings indicate that women valued clinicians with specialist perinatal expertise across all services, but for some women generic services were able to provide better continuity of care. Involvement of family members and care post discharge from acute services were perceived as poor across services, but there was also ambivalence among some women about increasing family involvement because of a complex range of factors. WP3(i) – for the perinatal VOICE, measures from exploratory factor analysis suggested that two factors gave an adequate fit (comparative fit index = 0.97). Items loading on these two dimensions were (1) those concerning aspects of the service relating to the care of the mother and (2) those relating to care of the baby. The factors were positively correlated (0.49; p < 0.0001). Total scores were strongly associated with service (with higher satisfaction for mother and baby units, 2 degrees of freedom; p < 0.0001) and with the ‘gold standard’ Client Service Questionnaire total score (test–retest intraclass correlation coefficient 0.784, 95% confidence interval 0.643 to 0.924; p < 0.0001). WP3(ii) – 263 of 279 women could be included in the primary analysis, which shows that the odds of being readmitted to acute care was 0.95 times higher for women who were admitted to a mother and baby unit than for those not admitted to a mother and baby unit (0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.04; p = 0.29). Sensitivity analysis using an instrumental variable found a markedly more significant effect of admission to mother and baby units (p < 0.001) than the primary analysis. Mother and baby units were not found to be cost-effective at 1 month post discharge because of the costs of care in a mother and baby unit. Cost-effectiveness advantages may exist if the cost of mother and baby units is offset by savings from reduced readmissions in the longer term. Policy and service changes had an impact on recruitment. In observational studies, residual confounding is likely. Services adapted for the perinatal period are highly valued by women and may be more effective than generic services. Mother and baby units have a low probability of being cost-effective in the short term, although this may vary in the longer term. Future work should include examination of how to reduce relapses, including in after-care following discharge, and how better to involve family members. This trial is registered as ISRCTN83768230 and as study registration UKCRN ID 16403. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 10, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
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
怀孕和出生后一年的围产期心理健康服务:ESMI研究方案,包括随机对照试验
目前尚不清楚如何最好地识别和治疗怀孕期间和出生后一年(即围产期)患有精神障碍的妇女。(1)探讨如何在产前预约中最好地识别抑郁症[工作包(WP) 1]。(2)评估妊娠早期精神障碍患病率(WP1)。(3)研究心理健康从业者对轻至中度产前抑郁的引导自助干预(WP1)。(4)探讨围生期住院护理意见服务满意度(VOICE, Views On Inpatient CarE)量表(WP3)的心理测量特征。(5)研究急性重度产后精神障碍(WPs 1-3)妇女服务的临床效果和成本效益。(6)调查女性及其伴侣/重要他人对不同类型护理的体验(WP2)。目的1和2 -通过对Whooley抑郁症筛查问题的回答分层进行横断面调查。目的3 -一项探索性随机对照试验。目标4 -探索性因素分析,包括通过与客户满意度问卷同期满意度分数的关联来评估重测信度和效度。目的5 -一项观察性队列研究,使用倾向得分作为主要分析,使用地理距离母婴单位进行工具变量分析。目的6 -定性研究。英国产妇服务以及为孕妇和产后妇女提供的一般和专业心理健康服务。心理健康和产妇服务的工作人员和使用者。指导自助,母婴单位和一般护理。评估WP1(i)的以下指标——特异性、敏感性、阳性预测值、似然比、可接受性和人群患病率估计。在WP1(ii)中评估了以下措施-参与者招募率,损失率和不良事件。在WP2 -护理体验中评估以下措施。对围产儿VOICE的WP3 -心理测量指标和出院后一年内再次接受急性护理的比例进行评估。WP1(i)——妊娠早期抑郁症人群患病率估计为11%(95%可信区间为8%至14%),任何精神障碍人群患病率估计为27%(95%可信区间为22%至32%)。两个抑郁症筛查问题的诊断准确率为:加权敏感性0.41,特异性0.95,阳性预测值0.45,阴性预测值0.93,似然比(阳性)8.2。爱丁堡产后抑郁量表的诊断准确率为:加权敏感性为0.59,特异性为0.94,阳性预测值为0.52,阴性预测值为0.95,似然比(阳性)为9.8。大多数妇女报告说,在产前预约时询问抑郁症是可以接受的,尽管据报道,对于有精神障碍和/或遭受虐待的妇女来说,这是不太可以接受的。成本-效果分析表明,Whooley抑郁症筛查问题和爱丁堡产后抑郁量表都比Whooley抑郁症筛查问题和爱丁堡产后抑郁量表或不筛查选项更具成本效益。WP1(ii): 53名妊娠期抑郁症妇女随机分组。26名妇女接受了改良的指导自助治疗[其中18名(69%)妇女参加了4次或更多次治疗],27名妇女接受了常规治疗。3名女性失访(主要结局随访:92%)。在随机分组后14周,接受指导自助的妇女报告的抑郁症状少于接受常规护理的妇女(调整后效应量- 0.64,95%置信区间- 1.30至0.06)。成本和质量调整生命年相似,根据国家健康与护理卓越研究所的每质量调整生命年门槛成本,与常规护理相比,指导自助具有成本效益的概率为50%。缓慢的招募率意味着未来确定的更大规模试验是不可行的。WP2 -定性调查结果表明,妇女重视在所有服务中具有围产期专业知识的临床医生,但对一些妇女来说,一般服务能够提供更好的连续性护理。家庭成员的参与和急症服务出院后的护理被认为在各个服务中都很差,但由于一系列复杂的因素,一些妇女对增加家庭参与也存在矛盾心理。WP3(i) -对于围产期VOICE,探索性因素分析的测量结果表明,两个因素的拟合度足够(比较拟合指数= 0.97)。 在这两个维度上加载的项目是(1)与照顾母亲有关的服务方面和(2)与照顾婴儿有关的服务方面。各因素呈显著正相关(0.49;p < 0.0001)。总分与服务密切相关(母婴单位满意度较高,2个自由度;p < 0.0001),并与“金标准”客户服务问卷总分(test-retest class内相关系数0.784,95%置信区间0.643 ~ 0.924;p < 0.0001)。WP3(ii)——279名妇女中有263名可纳入初级分析,这表明,入院母婴病房的妇女再次接受急性护理的几率比未入院母婴病房的妇女高0.95倍(0.95,95%可信区间0.86至1.04;p = 0.29)。使用工具变量的敏感性分析发现,与最初的分析相比,母亲和婴儿单元的入院效果明显更显著(p < 0.001)。由于母婴单位的护理费用,在出院后1个月,发现母婴单位不具有成本效益。如果母亲和婴儿单位的费用被长期减少再入院所节省的费用所抵消,则可能存在成本效益优势。政策和服务的变化对征聘产生了影响。在观察性研究中,可能存在残留混淆。针对围产期的服务受到妇女的高度重视,可能比一般服务更有效。母婴单位在短期内具有成本效益的可能性很低,尽管长期来看可能有所不同。未来的工作应该包括检查如何减少复发,包括出院后的护理,以及如何更好地让家庭成员参与进来。该试验注册为ISRCTN83768230,研究注册为UKCRN ID 16403。该项目由国家卫生和保健研究所(NIHR)应用研究方案资助,并将全文发表在应用研究方案资助上;第10卷第5期请参阅NIHR期刊图书馆网站了解更多项目信息。
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
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
53 weeks
期刊最新文献
Collaborative care intervention for individuals with severe mental illness: the PARTNERS2 programme including complex intervention development and cluster RCT Developing primary care services for stroke survivors: the Improving Primary Care After Stroke (IPCAS) research programme Improving the understanding and management of back pain in older adults: the BOOST research programme including RCT and OPAL cohort A casemix classification for those receiving specialist palliative care during their last year of life across England: the C-CHANGE research programme Peer support for discharge from inpatient to community mental health care: the ENRICH research programme
×
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