Gram P, Andersen CG, Petersen KS, Frederiksen MS, Thomsen LLH, Overgaard C. Identifying psychosocial vulnerabilities in pregnancy: A mixed-method systematic review of the knowledge base of antenatal conversational psychosocial assessment tools.
Midwifery 2024;
136:104066. [PMID:
38905861 DOI:
10.1016/j.midw.2024.104066]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2023] [Revised: 06/03/2024] [Accepted: 06/11/2024] [Indexed: 06/23/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Early identification of psychosocial vulnerability among expectant parents through psychosocial assessment is increasingly recommended within maternity care. For routine antenatal assessment, a strong recognition exists regarding conversational assessment tools. However, the knowledge base of conversational tools is limited, inhibiting their clinical use.
OBJECTIVE
Synthesising existing knowledge pertaining to antenatal conversational psychosocial assessment tools, including identifying characteristics, acceptability, performance, effectiveness and unintended consequences.
DESIGN
Mixed-method systematic review based on searches in CINAHL, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane and Scopus. 20 out of 5394 studies were included and synthesised with a convergent integrated approach using a thematic analysis strategy.
FINDINGS
We identified seven antenatal psychosocial assessment tools that partially or completely utilised a conversational approach. Women's acceptability was high, and tools were generally found to support person-centred communication and the parent-health care professional relationship. Evidence regarding effectiveness and performance of conversational tools was limited. Unintended consequences were found, including some women having negative experiences related to assessment of intimate partner violence, lack of preparation and lack of relevance. High acceptability was reported by health care professionals who considered the tools as valuable and enhancing of identification of vulnerability. Unintended consequences, including lack of time and competencies as well as discomfort when assessment is very sensitive, were reported.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence regarding conversational tools' effectiveness and performance is limited. More is known about the acceptability of conversational tools, which is generally highly acceptable among women and health care professionals. Some unintended consequences of the use of included conversational tools were identified.
Collapse