A comparison of the interviewer-administered phone and self-complete online versions of the computerized eMINI 6.0 in a sample of pregnant women

The impact of implementing patient-reported measures in routine maternity care: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

While there is growing interest in applying patient-reported measures (PRMs) in clinical routine, limited collective evidence of the impact of PRMs hinder their widespread use in specific contexts, such as maternity care. Our objective was to synthesize existing emperical evidence on the impact of implementing PRMs in routine maternity care.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines (version 2020). We electronically searched six databases for the literature on the implementation of PRMs in maternity care. A multi-level (woman, clinical, organizational, national and societal) analytic framework for analyzing and synthesizing emperically proven impacts of PRMs was developed. Quality was assessed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. The GRADE-CERQual approach was used to assess the confidence in the review findings and arguments. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021234501).

RESULTS

Overall, 4971 articles were screened. The emperical evidence, collected from 11 relevant studies, showed that the use of PRMs in routine maternity care could produce positive effects on clinical process (assessment and detection of health problems, clinical visit preparation, resource use, woman-professional communication, decision-making, woman-professional relationship, and care quality), and health behavior and outcomes (women's health and wellbeing, quality of life, health behavior, experiences and satisfaction with healthcare services), awareness, engagement and self-management of own health, and disclosure of health issues. The confidence in the review findings was low to moderate due to a limited number of studies, inadequate data and methodological limitations of included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The limited emperical evidence available suggested that the use of PRMs may have positive effects at the individual health level and clinical process level. However, the evidence was not strong enough to provide policy recommendations on the use of PRMs in routine maternity care. This review revealed limitations of currently available research, such as lack of generalizability and narrow scopes in investigating impact. Efforts are needed to improve the quality of research on the use of PRMs in routine maternity care by widening the study population, including different types of PRMs, and considering the effects of PRMs at different levels and domains of healthcare.

Women's interpretation, understanding and attribution of the anhedonia question in the PHQ-4 and modified-Whooley questions in the antenatal period

OBJECTIVES

To report on the rates of misinterpretation, confusion, and attribution of the anhedonia question in the PHQ-4 and Whooley questions by pregnant women.

BACKGROUND

The NICE Perinatal Mental Health guidelines recommend the use of the anhedonia question for depression screening, yet evidence suggests it may be misinterpreted or not be related to mood.

METHOD

Women attending a public hospital's antenatal clinic, communicating in English as their language of choice, completed either the PHQ-4 or the Whooley questions. Following comments to general evaluation questions in the first sample, women were asked a targeted anhedonia interpretation question, an anhedonia attribution question, and an ease of understanding question (PHQ-4: N = 37-119; Whooley: N = 31-100).

RESULTS

Across the PHQ-4 and Whooley formats around 15% of participants completely misinterpreted the anhedonia question, with a further 17% finding it difficult to understand. Around two-thirds of those experiencing the symptom said it was due to normal symptoms of pregnancy, and not related to their mood. In the PHQ-4 format, which included all three questions, 48% of the women had one or more of these issues. While CALD women appear to have greater difficulty understanding the question, there were no meaningful associations with whether English was spoken at home.

CONCLUSION

Almost half of the women incorrectly interpreted the anhedonia question, or said that it was confusing, or that it did not reflect low mood. These data indicate that the anhedonia question should not be used in screening women in the antenatal period, whether in the PHQ-4 or Whooley formats.