Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/37375
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSinesi, Andreaen_UK
dc.contributor.authorConstantinou, Georginaen_UK
dc.contributor.authorYuill, Cassandraen_UK
dc.contributor.authorMeades, Roseen_UK
dc.contributor.authorCheyne, Helenen_UK
dc.contributor.authorMaxwell, Margareten_UK
dc.contributor.authorBest, Catherineen_UK
dc.contributor.authorAyers, Susanen_UK
dc.contributor.authorShakespeare, Judyen_UK
dc.contributor.authorAlderdice, Fionaen_UK
dc.contributor.authorJomeen, Julieen_UK
dc.contributor.authorHoward, Graceen_UK
dc.date.accessioned2025-09-03T00:09:51Z-
dc.date.available2025-09-03T00:09:51Z-
dc.date.issued2025-05en_UK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/37375-
dc.description.abstractBackground During pregnancy and the first postnatal year, a substantial proportion of women experience perinatal anxiety, which is associated with increased risk of adverse birth, maternal and child development outcomes. Identification of perinatal anxiety is recommended in various countries, but there is a lack of consensus on the most effective, acceptable and feasible measure to use. The Methods of Assessing Perinatal Anxiety study previously found the Stirling Antenatal Anxiety Scale to be diagnostically accurate and acceptable to women. Objectives This study aimed to determine the acceptability and feasibility of implementing new assessment of perinatal anxiety in healthcare services. Design and methods Implementation case studies of perinatal anxiety assessment using the Stirling Antenatal Anxiety Scale in three National Health Service sites in the United Kingdom. Semistructured interviews and focus groups were conducted before and after implementation with healthcare professionals working in maternity, primary care and psychological services that had contact with perinatal women. Preimplementation data collection was used to develop an implementation and training strategy for each site. Interviews and focus groups were conducted with the same participants post implementation. Data were analysed using framework analysis and a combined inductive-deductive approach. Setting and participants Two National Health Service trusts in England and one National Health Service health board in Scotland. Participants were healthcare professionals, including midwives, health visitors, clinical psychologists and mental health nurses, who used the scale during the implementation period. Other stakeholders such as service managers and team leads were also interviewed. Sites were selected to represent different types of service and pathways of care. The sample comprised 37 participants at preimplementation and 27 at the postimplementation stage. Intervention Implementation of new assessment of perinatal anxiety in National Health Service services. Results At the English sites, one focus group and two interviews were conducted at site E1, and five interviews at site E2. At the Scottish site, two focus groups and six interviews were conducted. Evaluation findings were categorised into 5 themes (experience of change in practice, barriers/facilitators to implementation, acceptability, feasibility, improvements to implementation strategy) with 16 subthemes. The experience of introducing a new assessment tool in clinical practice was generally seen as positive, with the scale enabling more focused conversations with women about their symptoms and different types of anxiety. Potential barriers to conducting assessments included women not having English as first language and stigma towards anxiety in some cultures. The scale overall was acceptable to healthcare professionals. Recommendations to improve the implementation strategy included adding the tool to patients’ electronic notes and getting wider buy-in from senior management. Limitations Healthcare practitioners mainly used paper versions of the scale, while most National Health Service services are moving towards patients’ electronic notes. Only 73% of participants were interviewed at the postimplementation stage. Variation in clinical pathways and services means results may not be generalisable to other settings. Conclusions Implementation of a new measure of perinatal anxiety was perceived positively overall. Future work Further research should explore the use of a digital version of the tool and translated versions. Replication in National Health Service services with different care pathways is also recommended.en_UK
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.publisherNational Institute for Health and Care Researchen_UK
dc.relationSinesi A, Constantinou G, Yuill C, Meades R, Cheyne H, Maxwell M, Best C, Ayers S, Shakespeare J, Alderdice F, Jomeen J & Howard G (2025) Implementing routine assessment of perinatal anxiety: case studies. <i>Health and Social Care Delivery Research</i>. https://doi.org/10.3310/wwmd9982en_UK
dc.rightsCopyright © 2025 Sinesi et al. This work was produced by Sinesi et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This is an Open Access publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0 licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. For attribution the title, original author(s), the publication source – NIHR Journals Library, and the DOI of the publication must be cited.en_UK
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_UK
dc.titleImplementing routine assessment of perinatal anxiety: case studiesen_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.identifier.doi10.3310/wwmd9982en_UK
dc.identifier.pmid40418080en_UK
dc.citation.jtitleHealth and Social Care Delivery Researchen_UK
dc.citation.issn2755-0079en_UK
dc.citation.issn2755-0060en_UK
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublisheden_UK
dc.citation.peerreviewedRefereeden_UK
dc.type.statusVoR - Version of Recorden_UK
dc.contributor.funderNational Institute for Health Researchen_UK
dc.author.emailcatherine.best2@stir.ac.uken_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationCHeCRen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationSt George's, University of Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationSt George's, University of Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationSt George's, University of Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationCHeCRen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationCHeCRen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationCHeCRen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationSt George's, University of Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationIndependenten_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Oxforden_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationSouthern Cross Universityen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationKing's College Londonen_UK
dc.identifier.wtid2156115en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0002-2389-7901en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0002-3918-5917en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0002-6944-6428en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0001-5738-8390en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0003-3318-9500en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0002-3652-2498en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0002-6153-2460en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0003-0770-8098en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0003-2404-5644en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0002-4510-583Xen_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0009-0006-3071-5981en_UK
dc.date.accepted2025-01-31en_UK
dcterms.dateAccepted2025-01-31en_UK
dc.date.filedepositdate2025-08-19en_UK
dc.relation.funderprojectMethods of assessing perinatal anxiety: The acceptability, effectiveness and feasibility of different approachesen_UK
dc.relation.funderref17/105/16en_UK
rioxxterms.apcnot requireden_UK
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_UK
local.rioxx.authorSinesi, Andrea|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorConstantinou, Georgina|0000-0002-2389-7901en_UK
local.rioxx.authorYuill, Cassandra|0000-0002-3918-5917en_UK
local.rioxx.authorMeades, Rose|0000-0002-6944-6428en_UK
local.rioxx.authorCheyne, Helen|0000-0001-5738-8390en_UK
local.rioxx.authorMaxwell, Margaret|0000-0003-3318-9500en_UK
local.rioxx.authorBest, Catherine|0000-0002-3652-2498en_UK
local.rioxx.authorAyers, Susan|0000-0002-6153-2460en_UK
local.rioxx.authorShakespeare, Judy|0000-0003-0770-8098en_UK
local.rioxx.authorAlderdice, Fiona|0000-0003-2404-5644en_UK
local.rioxx.authorJomeen, Julie|0000-0002-4510-583Xen_UK
local.rioxx.authorHoward, Grace|0009-0006-3071-5981en_UK
local.rioxx.project17/105/16|National Institute for Health Research|http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000272en_UK
local.rioxx.freetoreaddate2025-08-28en_UK
local.rioxx.licencehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/|2025-08-28|en_UK
local.rioxx.filename3047938.pdfen_UK
local.rioxx.filecount1en_UK
local.rioxx.source2755-0079en_UK
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
3047938.pdfFulltext - Published Version976.06 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is protected by original copyright



A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.