Cited by 23Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsMaternal and Neonatal Healthcare

Assessing mental health during pregnancy: An exploratory qualitative study of midwives’ perceptions

Baker, Natasha, Gillman, Lindsay, Coxon, Kirstie·2020·Midwifery

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mental health disorders are estimated to affect between 10% and 20% of women who access maternity services and can be defined as a public health issue due to the potential consequences for women, children and families. Detecting problems early in pregnancy can significantly improve outcomes for women and their families. However, mental health problems are not being consistently identified in routine midwifery practice and little is known from current literature about midwives' practice in relation to current national guidelines or the impact models of care have on assessing maternal mental health. OBJECTIVE: To identify midwives' views about barriers and facilitators to screening for mental health in pregnancy using current UK guidelines. DESIGN: Nine community midwives from a single district general hospital in the south of England were recruited to take part in focus groups. Thematic analysis was used to extract key themes from the data. FINDINGS: Three key themes were identified from the focus groups and included system factors, social factors and trust. Barriers and facilitators to screening maternal mental health were associated with the initial 'booking' appointment' and differences in models of care. Barriers to screening were defined as high workload, poor continuity, and a lack of trust between women and midwives. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights key barriers and facilitators associated with mental health screening during pregnancy, including issues of trust and uncertainty about women's willingness to disclose mental health conditions. Further research is required to evaluate the relationship between women and midwives in contemporary practice and the influence this may have on maternal mental health.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.midw.2020.102690

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 19 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Baker, N., Gillman, L., & Coxon, K.
Affiliations
  • Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • St George's, University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Baker, Natasha
Venue
Midwifery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-07
Volume
86
Pages
102690
ISSN
0266-6138 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3011794163
Cited by
23
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3
FWCI
2.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Midwifery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Repository (Kingston University London) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
Keywords
maternal mental health, midwives' perceptions, barriers and facilitators, midwifery practice, continuity of care, workload, models of care, obstetric care
MeSH terms
Adult, England, Female, Humans, Maternal Health Services, Mental Health, Mental Health Services, Nurse Midwives, Perception, Focus Groups, Qualitative Research, Pregnant People

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review