MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2766619695 · doi:10.2196/mental.6888

Pregnant Women’s Perceptions of the Risks and Benefits of Disclosure During Web-Based Mental Health E-Screening Versus Paper-Based Screening: Randomized Controlled Trial

2017· article· en· W2766619695 sur OpenAlexafffundvenue
Dawn Kingston, Anne Biringer, Sander Veldhuyzen van Zanten, Rebecca Giallo, Sarah D. McDonald, Glenda MacQueen, Lydia Vermeyden, Marie‐Paule Austin

Notice bibliographique

RevueJMIR Mental Health · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Établissements canadiensMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Mots-clésMedicineRandomized controlled trialPsychosocialMental healthIntervention (counseling)Edinburgh Postnatal Depression ScaleFamily medicinePsychiatryAnxiety

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pregnant women's perceptions of the risks and benefits during mental health screening impact their willingness to disclose concerns. Early research in violence screening suggests that such perceptions may vary by mode of screening, whereby women view the anonymity of e-screening as less risky than other approaches. Understanding whether mode of screening influences perceptions of risk and benefit of disclosure is important in screening implementation. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this randomized controlled trial was to compare the perceptions of pregnant women randomized to a Web-based screening intervention group and a paper-based screening control group on the level of risk and benefit they perceive in disclosing mental health concerns to their prenatal care provider. A secondary objective was to identify factors associated with women's perceptions of risk and benefit of disclosure. METHODS: Pregnant women recruited from maternity clinics, hospitals, and prenatal classes were computer-randomized to a fully automated Web-based e-screening intervention group or a paper-based control. The intervention group completed the Antenatal Psychosocial Health Assessment and the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale on a computer tablet, whereas the control group completed them on paper. The primary outcome was women's perceptions of the risk and benefits of mental health screening using the Disclosure Expectations Scale (DES). A completer analysis was conducted. Statistical significance was set at P<.05. We used t tests to compare the means of the risk and benefit subscales between groups. RESULTS: Of the 675 eligible women approached, 636 (94.2%) agreed to participate and were randomized to the intervention (n=305) and control (n=331) groups. There were no significant baseline differences between groups. The mode of screening was not associated with either perceived risk or benefit of screening. There were no differences in groups in the mean scores of the risk and benefit of disclosure subscales. Over three-quarters of women in both intervention and control groups perceived that mental health screening was beneficial. However, 43.1% (272/631) of women in both groups reported feeling very, moderately, or somewhat vulnerable during mental health screening. We found that women of low income, those treated previously for depression or anxiety, and those pregnant with their first child were more likely to perceive greater risk. However, these associations were very small. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnant women in both the e-screening and paper-based screening groups perceived benefit and risk of disclosure similarly, suggesting that providers can implement the mode of screening that is most ideal for their clinical setting. Regardless of the mode of screening, a substantial number of women reported feeling vulnerable during mental health screening, highlighting the importance of the need to reduce women's vulnerability throughout the screening process with strategies such as addressing women's concerns, explaining the rationale for screening, and discussing how results will be used. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01899534; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01899534 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6tRKtGC4M).

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)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,011
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 seuil0,049

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,011
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0050,003
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,003
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 Opus0,040
Tête enseignante GPT0,350
Écart entre enseignants0,310 · 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

Citations16
Publié2017
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJMIR Mental HealthMême sujetMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumTravaux en français237 207