Postpartum depression

An original survey of screening practices within a healthcare system

Puja Chadha-Hooks, Ju Hui Park, Donald M. Hilty, Andreea L. Seritan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: This study evaluated the strategies for postpartum depression (PPD) screening by surveying healthcare providers at a US academic medical centre. Methods: A 10-question survey was administered to 251 Obstetrics/Gynaecology, Paediatrics, and Family Practice physicians, nurses and other healthcare professionals in AprilJune 2007. It explored PPD screening methods and familiarity with selected screening instruments (EPDS, PDSS and PHQ-9). Familiarity scores were assigned based on Likert scale ratings, from 1 (not familiar at all) to 5 (using it all the time). Score mean values and standard deviations were calculated for each screening tool, overall and across specialty and training status. Pearson chi-square analyses with discrete and categorical variables and ANOVA with continuous variables were conducted, followed by Tukey post hoc analyses to identify significant mean differences. Results: There were 131 completed surveys. Respondents were largely unfamiliar with PPD screening instruments, although Ob/Gyn providers were significantly more aware of each tool than were Paediatrics members. Preferred screening methods were symptom review (83) and physical examination/observation (65). Sixty-three per cent of respondents used multiple methods. Timing of screening varied across specialties. Paediatric providers screened earliest (04 weeks) of all respondents. Conclusions: Healthcare providers typically screened for PPD using a combination of clinical methods and were less familiar with standardised instruments. Uniform screening protocols across specialties and targeted educational interventions are strongly recommended to promote better detection and collaborative management of PPD.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)199-205
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology
Volume31
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2010

Fingerprint

Postpartum Depression
Delivery of Health Care
Pediatrics
Health Personnel
Family Practice
antineoplaston A10
Family Physicians
Gynecology
Obstetrics
Physical Examination
Analysis of Variance
Nurses
Observation
Surveys and Questionnaires

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Reproductive Medicine
  • Clinical Psychology

Cite this

Postpartum depression : An original survey of screening practices within a healthcare system. / Chadha-Hooks, Puja; Hui Park, Ju; Hilty, Donald M.; Seritan, Andreea L.

In: Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vol. 31, No. 3, 09.2010, p. 199-205.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{439a96b641534b0ea1851a8d5126601b,
title = "Postpartum depression: An original survey of screening practices within a healthcare system",
abstract = "Objective: This study evaluated the strategies for postpartum depression (PPD) screening by surveying healthcare providers at a US academic medical centre. Methods: A 10-question survey was administered to 251 Obstetrics/Gynaecology, Paediatrics, and Family Practice physicians, nurses and other healthcare professionals in AprilJune 2007. It explored PPD screening methods and familiarity with selected screening instruments (EPDS, PDSS and PHQ-9). Familiarity scores were assigned based on Likert scale ratings, from 1 (not familiar at all) to 5 (using it all the time). Score mean values and standard deviations were calculated for each screening tool, overall and across specialty and training status. Pearson chi-square analyses with discrete and categorical variables and ANOVA with continuous variables were conducted, followed by Tukey post hoc analyses to identify significant mean differences. Results: There were 131 completed surveys. Respondents were largely unfamiliar with PPD screening instruments, although Ob/Gyn providers were significantly more aware of each tool than were Paediatrics members. Preferred screening methods were symptom review (83) and physical examination/observation (65). Sixty-three per cent of respondents used multiple methods. Timing of screening varied across specialties. Paediatric providers screened earliest (04 weeks) of all respondents. Conclusions: Healthcare providers typically screened for PPD using a combination of clinical methods and were less familiar with standardised instruments. Uniform screening protocols across specialties and targeted educational interventions are strongly recommended to promote better detection and collaborative management of PPD.",
author = "Puja Chadha-Hooks and {Hui Park}, Ju and Hilty, {Donald M.} and Seritan, {Andreea L.}",
year = "2010",
month = "9",
doi = "10.3109/0167482X.2010.484513",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "31",
pages = "199--205",
journal = "Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynaecology",
issn = "0167-482X",
publisher = "Informa Healthcare",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Postpartum depression

T2 - An original survey of screening practices within a healthcare system

AU - Chadha-Hooks, Puja

AU - Hui Park, Ju

AU - Hilty, Donald M.

AU - Seritan, Andreea L.

PY - 2010/9

Y1 - 2010/9

N2 - Objective: This study evaluated the strategies for postpartum depression (PPD) screening by surveying healthcare providers at a US academic medical centre. Methods: A 10-question survey was administered to 251 Obstetrics/Gynaecology, Paediatrics, and Family Practice physicians, nurses and other healthcare professionals in AprilJune 2007. It explored PPD screening methods and familiarity with selected screening instruments (EPDS, PDSS and PHQ-9). Familiarity scores were assigned based on Likert scale ratings, from 1 (not familiar at all) to 5 (using it all the time). Score mean values and standard deviations were calculated for each screening tool, overall and across specialty and training status. Pearson chi-square analyses with discrete and categorical variables and ANOVA with continuous variables were conducted, followed by Tukey post hoc analyses to identify significant mean differences. Results: There were 131 completed surveys. Respondents were largely unfamiliar with PPD screening instruments, although Ob/Gyn providers were significantly more aware of each tool than were Paediatrics members. Preferred screening methods were symptom review (83) and physical examination/observation (65). Sixty-three per cent of respondents used multiple methods. Timing of screening varied across specialties. Paediatric providers screened earliest (04 weeks) of all respondents. Conclusions: Healthcare providers typically screened for PPD using a combination of clinical methods and were less familiar with standardised instruments. Uniform screening protocols across specialties and targeted educational interventions are strongly recommended to promote better detection and collaborative management of PPD.

AB - Objective: This study evaluated the strategies for postpartum depression (PPD) screening by surveying healthcare providers at a US academic medical centre. Methods: A 10-question survey was administered to 251 Obstetrics/Gynaecology, Paediatrics, and Family Practice physicians, nurses and other healthcare professionals in AprilJune 2007. It explored PPD screening methods and familiarity with selected screening instruments (EPDS, PDSS and PHQ-9). Familiarity scores were assigned based on Likert scale ratings, from 1 (not familiar at all) to 5 (using it all the time). Score mean values and standard deviations were calculated for each screening tool, overall and across specialty and training status. Pearson chi-square analyses with discrete and categorical variables and ANOVA with continuous variables were conducted, followed by Tukey post hoc analyses to identify significant mean differences. Results: There were 131 completed surveys. Respondents were largely unfamiliar with PPD screening instruments, although Ob/Gyn providers were significantly more aware of each tool than were Paediatrics members. Preferred screening methods were symptom review (83) and physical examination/observation (65). Sixty-three per cent of respondents used multiple methods. Timing of screening varied across specialties. Paediatric providers screened earliest (04 weeks) of all respondents. Conclusions: Healthcare providers typically screened for PPD using a combination of clinical methods and were less familiar with standardised instruments. Uniform screening protocols across specialties and targeted educational interventions are strongly recommended to promote better detection and collaborative management of PPD.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77955891909&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77955891909&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3109/0167482X.2010.484513

DO - 10.3109/0167482X.2010.484513

M3 - Article

VL - 31

SP - 199

EP - 205

JO - Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynaecology

JF - Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynaecology

SN - 0167-482X

IS - 3

ER -