MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2605032824 · doi:10.2196/jmir.6866

Pregnant Women’s Views on the Feasibility and Acceptability of Web-Based Mental Health E-Screening Versus Paper-Based Screening: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2017· article· en· W2605032824 sur OpenAlexafffund
Dawn Kingston, Marie‐Paule Austin, Sander Veldhuyzen van Zanten, Paula Harvalik, Rebecca Giallo, Sarah D. McDonald, Glenda MacQueen, Lydia Vermeyden, Gerri Lasiuk, Wendy Sword, Anne Biringer

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Medical Internet Research · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Établissements canadiensUniversity of TorontoUniversity of OttawaMcMaster UniversityUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Mots-clésMedicineRandomized controlled trialPsychosocialMental healthEdinburgh Postnatal Depression ScaleFamily medicineIntervention (counseling)Psychological interventionPrenatal careRandomizationAnxietyPsychiatryPopulationDepressive symptoms

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Major international guidelines recommend mental health screening during the perinatal period. However, substantial barriers to screening have been reported by pregnant and postpartum women and perinatal care providers. E-screening offers benefits that may address implementation challenges. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of Web-based mental health e-screening compared with paper-based screening among pregnant women. A secondary objective was to identify factors associated with women's preferences for e-screening and disclosure of mental health concerns. METHODS: Pregnant women recruited from community and hospital-based antenatal clinics and hospital-based prenatal classes were computer-randomized to a fully automated Web-based e-screening intervention group or a paper-based control group. Women were eligible if they spoke or read English, were willing to be randomized to e-screening, and were willing to participate in a follow-up diagnostic interview. The intervention group completed the Antenatal Psychosocial Health Assessment and the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale on a tablet computer, while controls completed them on paper. All women completed self-report baseline questions and were telephoned 1 week after randomization by a blinded research assistant for a MINI International Neuropsychiatric Interview. Renker and Tonkin's tool of feasibility and acceptability of computerized screening was used to assess the feasibility and acceptability of e-screening compared with paper-based screening. Intention-to-treat analysis was used. To identify factors associated with preference for e-screening and disclosure, variables associated with each outcome at P<.20 were simultaneously entered into final multivariable models to estimate adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% CIs. RESULTS: Of the 675 eligible women approached, 636 agreed to participate (participation rate 94.2%) and were randomized to the intervention (n=305) or control (n=331) groups. There were no significant baseline differences between groups. More women in the e-screening group strongly or somewhat agreed that they would like to use a tablet for answering questions on emotional health (57.9%, 175/302 vs 37.2%, 121/325) and would prefer using a tablet to paper (46.0%, 139/302 vs 29.2%, 95/325), compared with women in the paper-based screening group. There were no differences between groups in women's disclosure of emotional health concerns (94.1%, 284/302 vs 90.2%, 293/325). Women in the e-screening group consistently reported the features of e-screening more favorably than controls (more private or confidential, less impersonal, less time-consuming). In the multivariable models, being in the e-screening group was significantly associated with preferring e-screening (AOR 2.29, 95% CI 1.66-3.17), while no factors were significantly associated with disclosure. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that mental health e-screening is feasible and acceptable to pregnant women. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01899534; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01899534 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6ntWg1yWb).

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,012
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,015
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,061

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0120,021
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0050,004
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0050,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0150,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,189
Tête enseignante GPT0,475
Écart entre enseignants0,286 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations55
Publié2017
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Medical Internet ResearchMême sujetMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumTravaux en français237 207