IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0145189.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pregnant Women’s Perceptions of Harms and Benefits of Mental Health Screening

Author

Listed:
  • Dawn Kingston
  • Marie-Paule Austin
  • Sheila W McDonald
  • Lydia Vermeyden
  • Maureen Heaman
  • Kathleen Hegadoren
  • Gerri Lasiuk
  • Joshua Kingston
  • Wendy Sword
  • Karly Jarema
  • Sander Veldhuyzen van Zanten
  • Sarah D McDonald
  • Anne Biringer

Abstract

Background: A widely held concern of screening is that its psychological harms may outweigh the benefits of early detection and treatment. This study describes pregnant women's perceptions of possible harms and benefits of mental health screening and factors associated with identifying screening as harmful or beneficial. Methods: This study analyzed a subgroup of women who had undergone formal or informal mental health screening from our larger multi-site, cross-sectional study. Pregnant women >16 years of age who spoke/read English were recruited (May-December 2013) from prenatal classes and maternity clinics in Alberta, Canada. Descriptive statistics were generated to summarize harms and benefits of screening and multivariable logistic regression identified factors associated with reporting at least one harm or affirming screening as a positive experience (January-December 2014). Results: Overall study participation rate was 92% (N = 460/500). Among women screened for mental health concerns (n = 238), 63% viewed screening as positive, 69% were glad to be asked, and 87% took it as evidence their provider cared about them. Only one woman identified screening as a negative experience. Of the 6 harms, none was endorsed by >7% of women, with embarrassment being most cited. Women who were very comfortable (vs somewhat/not comfortable) with screening were more likely to report it as a positive experience. Limitations: Women were largely Caucasian, well-educated, partnered women; thus, findings may not be generalizable to women with socioeconomic risk. Conclusions: Most women perceived prenatal mental health screening as having high benefit and low harm. These findings dispel popular concerns that mental health screening is psychologically harmful.

Suggested Citation

  • Dawn Kingston & Marie-Paule Austin & Sheila W McDonald & Lydia Vermeyden & Maureen Heaman & Kathleen Hegadoren & Gerri Lasiuk & Joshua Kingston & Wendy Sword & Karly Jarema & Sander Veldhuyzen van Zan, 2015. "Pregnant Women’s Perceptions of Harms and Benefits of Mental Health Screening," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-13, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0145189
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145189
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0145189
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0145189&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0145189?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0145189. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.