You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 7, Issue 2
  • Unacceptability of routine screening for postnatal depression was related to the screening process, the intrusiveness of questions, and the stigma of disease

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Qualitative
Unacceptability of routine screening for postnatal depression was related to the screening process, the intrusiveness of questions, and the stigma of disease

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebn.7.2.61

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Shakespeare J, Blake F, Garcia J. A qualitative study of the acceptability of routine screening of postnatal women using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Br J Gen Pract 2003;53:614–9.OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text

    Q How do women experience routine screening by health visitors (HVs) using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS)?

    DESIGN

    Indepth interviews.

    SETTING

    22 general practices in Oxford, UK.

    PARTICIPANTS

    39 women (mean age 34 y) were selected based on their registered general practice, EPDS scores at 8 weeks and 8 months, and whether listening visits were recorded (a proxy measure for postnatal depression). Exclusion criteria were inadequate English, age <16 years, learning disability, or infant death.

    METHODS

    Women were interviewed at 11–19 months after delivery and asked about how they felt in the first 3 months after the birth and about completing the EPDS. Screening was judged “acceptable” if women gave positive or neutral responses to questions about the EPDS. Interviews were tape recorded, transcribed verbatim, and …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • For correspondence: Dr J Shakespeare, Summertown Health Centre, Oxford, UK. judyshake-speare.demon.co.uk

    • Sources of funding: National Health System and the Scientific Foundation Board of the Royal College of General Practitioners.