Ayers Susan, Meades Rose, Sinesi Andrea, Cheyne Helen, Maxwell Margaret, Best Catherine, Jomeen Julie, Walker James, Shakespeare Judy, Alderdice Fiona
Centre for Maternal and Child Health Research, City St. George's, University of London, London, UK.
Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2025 Sep;13(32):1-44. doi: 10.3310/RRHD1124.
Anxiety is a common mental illness that can occur during and after pregnancy, which is associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes for women and their infants. Despite this, there is no consensus on the best method of assessing anxiety.
The methods of assessing perinatal anxiety (MAP) study aimed to identify the most acceptable, effective and feasible method for assessing anxiety in pregnancy and after birth.
The MAP study had four work packages: a qualitative and cognitive interview study (work package 1); a prospective longitudinal cohort study of women during pregnancy (early, mid- and late pregnancy) and post partum, with nested diagnostic interviews (work package 2) and implementation case studies (work package 3). Secondary analysis of cohort data was commissioned as an add-on project to examine the impact of socioeconomic deprivation on perinatal anxiety (work package 4). The MAP study evaluated four assessment measures based on clinical criteria and research evidence: the General Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire, 2-item, or 7-item version scale, Whooley questions, Stirling Antenatal Anxiety Scale and Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - 10 item version scale.
Qualitative and cognitive interviews (work package 1) were conducted with 41 pregnant and postpartum women, recruited through patient and public involvement representative organisations and social media. The MAP cohort (work package 2) included 2243 women recruited through 12 National Health Service Trusts in England and 5 National Health Service Boards in Scotland. Diagnostic interviews were conducted with a consecutive subsample of 403 participants. Implementation case studies (work package 3) were conducted with two National Health Service sites in England and one in Scotland.
Routine assessment of perinatal anxiety was acceptable to women and was viewed positively, although this was qualified by the extent to which the process was informed and personalised. Results from cognitive interviews found that all measures were acceptable and easy to use. Diagnostic accuracy was greatest for the Stirling Antenatal Anxiety Scale and Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - 10 item version. Increased anxiety on all measures was associated with greater difficulties with daily living, poorer quality of life and participants wanting treatment. Early pregnancy (i.e. the first trimester) was the optimal time for identifying participants with anxiety disorders who wanted treatment. Two measures met criteria for implementation: the Stirling Antenatal Anxiety Scale and the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - 10 item version. The Stirling Antenatal Anxiety Scale was preferred by stakeholders (41 women and 55 health professionals), so it was implemented. Acceptability to health professionals ( = 27) of routine assessment using the Stirling Antenatal Anxiety Scale was good. Potential barriers to conducting assessments informed the development of a guide to implementation. The prevalence of anxiety disorders was 19.9% (confidence interval 16.1 to 24.1), with highest prevalence in early pregnancy (25.5%, confidence interval 17.4 to 35.1). A complex relationship was found between regional deprivation and perinatal anxiety, with regional differences in prevalence being explained by sociodemographic composition.
The MAP cohort had a greater ethnic diversity than the general population, but participants were highly educated. The study evaluated four measures, so it could not determine whether other measures are more effective. The qualitative and observational research design means causality could not be inferred.
The MAP study found that routine assessment of perinatal anxiety is acceptable to women and is feasible to implement in National Health Service services. The Stirling Antenatal Anxiety Scale and Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - 10 item version were most effective at identifying women with perinatal anxiety disorders who wanted treatment.
Further research is needed to determine whether implementing routine assessment of perinatal anxiety results in improved outcomes for women and children.
This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme as award number 17/105/16.
焦虑是一种常见的精神疾病,可发生在孕期及产后,与女性及其婴儿出现不良结局的风险增加有关。尽管如此,对于评估焦虑的最佳方法尚无共识。
围产期焦虑评估方法(MAP)研究旨在确定评估孕期及产后焦虑最可接受、有效且可行的方法。
MAP研究有四个工作包:定性和认知访谈研究(工作包1);对孕期(孕早期、中期和晚期)及产后女性进行的前瞻性纵向队列研究,嵌套诊断访谈(工作包2)和实施案例研究(工作包3)。委托对队列数据进行二次分析作为附加项目,以研究社会经济剥夺对围产期焦虑的影响(工作包4)。MAP研究基于临床标准和研究证据评估了四种评估措施:广泛性焦虑障碍问卷2项或7项版本量表、胡利问题、斯特林产前焦虑量表和常规评估临床结局 - 10项版本量表。
通过患者和公众参与代表组织及社交媒体招募了41名孕期和产后女性进行定性和认知访谈(工作包1)。MAP队列(工作包2)包括通过英格兰的12个国民健康服务信托机构和苏格兰的5个国民健康服务委员会招募的2243名女性。对403名参与者的连续子样本进行了诊断访谈。在英格兰的两个国民健康服务机构和苏格兰的一个机构进行了实施案例研究(工作包3)。
围产期焦虑的常规评估为女性所接受且评价积极,不过这取决于该过程的告知程度和个性化程度。认知访谈结果表明,所有措施都可接受且易于使用。斯特林产前焦虑量表和常规评估临床结局 - 10项版本的诊断准确性最高。所有测量指标上焦虑增加都与日常生活中更大的困难、较差的生活质量以及参与者寻求治疗相关。孕早期(即妊娠首三个月)是识别有焦虑障碍且寻求治疗的参与者的最佳时机。有两项措施符合实施标准:斯特林产前焦虑量表和常规评估临床结局 - 10项版本。利益相关者(41名女性和55名卫生专业人员)更倾向于斯特林产前焦虑量表,因此予以实施。使用斯特林产前焦虑量表进行常规评估对卫生专业人员的可接受性良好(n = 27)。进行评估的潜在障碍为实施指南的制定提供了依据。焦虑障碍的患病率为19.9%(置信区间16.1至24.1),在孕早期患病率最高(25.5%,置信区间17.4至35.1)。发现地区剥夺与围产期焦虑之间存在复杂关系,患病率的地区差异可由社会人口构成来解释。
MAP队列的种族多样性高于一般人群,但参与者受教育程度较高。该研究评估了四种措施,因此无法确定其他措施是否更有效。定性和观察性研究设计意味着无法推断因果关系。
MAP研究发现,围产期焦虑的常规评估为女性所接受,且在国民健康服务机构中可行。斯特林产前焦虑量表和常规评估临床结局 - 10项版本在识别有围产期焦虑障碍且寻求治疗的女性方面最有效。
需要进一步研究以确定实施围产期焦虑的常规评估是否会改善妇女和儿童的结局。
本综述介绍了由国家卫生与保健研究所(NIHR)卫生与社会保健交付研究计划资助的独立研究,资助编号为17/105/16。