Cited by 35Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumHealth Policy Implementation ScienceMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions

Barriers to antenatal psychosocial assessment and depression screening in private hospital settings

Connell, Tanya, Barnett, Bryanne, Waters, Donna·2018·Women and Birth

Abstract

Problem The evidence of benefit for antenatal psychosocial assessment and depression screening has been sufficient to lead the implementation of screening in public hospitals in all states of Australia. Details of the implementation of perinatal screening in private obstetric settings is less well known.Aim As any successful implementation relies on the identification of local barriers, we aimed to determine what perceived or actual barriers may exist for the implementation of evidence-based perinatal screening interventions in private obstetric care, and specifically within small private hospitals.Method The integrative literature review method offers a structured systematic approach to organise, synthesize and critique research from a range of sources. This method was used to determine what barriers have been identified in implementing psychosocial assessment and depression screening with women receiving obstetric care in private hospital settings.Findings The integrative review findings suggest that barriers to implementing psychosocial screening in the private sector are similar to those experienced in the public sector but may also be influenced by the corporate focus of private services. Barriers were identified among health professionals, within the personal and psychosocial context of women and their families, and at provider or system level.Conclusion Once identified, barriers can be systematically addressed to enhance the success of implementing psychosocial and depression screening in the private sector. Screening is likely to be influenced by the business models and operating systems of private service providers. Health professionals working within this environment need more support to conduct perinatal assessment within this context.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.wombi.2017.09.021

Cites

26 of 26 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.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Connell, T., Barnett, B., & Waters, D.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Connell, Tanya
Venue
Women and Birth
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-08
Volume
31
Issue
4
Pages
292-298
ISSN
1871-5192 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2764033823
Cited by
35
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Women and Birth (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Keywords
implementation barriers, private hospitals, perinatal screening, health worker support
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Australia, Depression, Female, Humans, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Poverty, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Complications, Prenatal Care, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Hospitals, Private, Risk Assessment

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