International Journal of Public Health

, Volume 62, Issue 4, pp 441–452 | Cite as

Responding to maternal distress: from needs assessment to effective intervention

  • Yvonne Fontein-Kuipers
  • Evelien van Limbeek
  • Marlein Ausems
  • Raymond de Vries
  • Marianne Nieuwenhuijze
Original Article

Abstract

Objectives

To perform a needs assessment of maternal distress to plan the development of an intervention for the prevention and reduction of antenatal maternal distress.

Methods

We searched PubMed, OVID and EBSCO and applied the PRECEDE logic model to select the data. Experts in the field validated the findings.

Results

We identified 45 studies. Maternal distress was associated with diminished maternal and child’s quality of life. Aetiological factors of maternal distress included past and present circumstances related to obstetric factors and to a woman’s context of living, coping behaviour, and support mechanisms. Lacking knowledge of coping with (maternal) distress was identified as a predisposing factor. Reinforcing factors were relaxation, partner support, counselling experiences and positive interaction with the midwife. Enabling factors were the availability of a support network.

Conclusions

When planning the development of an antenatal intervention for maternal distress, it is advisable to focus on assessment of antenatal emotional wellbeing, the context of the woman’s past and present circumstances, her coping behaviour and her environment. The identified predisposing factors, enabling and reinforcing factors should also be taken into consideration.

Keywords

Maternal distress Intervention mapping PRECEDE Pregnancy Intervention Health promotion 

References

  1. Bartholomew L, Parcel G, Kok G, Gottlieb N, Fernàndez M (2011) Planning health promotion programs. An intervention mapping approach, 3rd edn. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  2. Beebe B, Lachmann F, Jaffe J, Merkese S, Buck K, Chen H (2012) Maternal postpartum depressive symptoms and 4-month mother-infant interaction. Psychoanal Psychol 29(4):383–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berg M (2005) A midwifery model of care for childbearing women at high risk: genuine caring in caring for the genuine. J Perinat Educ 14(1):9–21CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Buist A (2003) Promoting positive parenthood: emotional health in pregnancy. Austral Midwifery J 16(1):10–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell N, Murray E, Darbyshire J, Emery J, Farmer A, Griffiths F, Guthrie B, Lester H, Wilson P, Kinmonth A (2007) Designing and evaluating complex interventions to improve health. BMJ 334:455–459CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Cesario S, Morin K, Santa-Donato A (2002) Evaluating the level of evidence of qualitative research. JOGNN 31:708–714CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cooke M, Schmied V, Sheehan A (2007) An exploration of the relationship between postnatal distress and maternal role attainment, breast feeding problems and breast feeding cessation in Australia. Midwifery 23(1):66–76CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Crosby R, Noar S (2011) What is a planning model? An introduction to PRECEDE-PROCEED. J Public Health Dent 71:S7–S15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cupples M, Stewart M, Percy A, Hepper P, Murphy C, Halliday H (2011) A RCT of peer-mentoring for first-time mothers in socially disadvantaged areas (The MOMENTS-study). Arch Dis Child 96:252–258CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Emanuel E, St. John W (2010) Maternal distress: concept analysis. J Adv Nurs 66:2104–2115Google Scholar
  11. Green L, Kreuter M (2005) Health promotion planning: an educational and ecological approach, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Green B, Johnson C, Adams A (2006) Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. J Chiropr Med 5(3):101–117CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Ickovics J, Reed E, Magriples U, Westdahk C, Schindler Rising S, Kershaw T (2011) Effects of group prenatal care on psychosocial risk in pregnancy: results from a randomised controlled trial. Psychol Health 26:235–250CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Jokela M (2010) Characteristics of the first child predict the parents’ probability of having another child. Dev Psychol 46(4):915–926CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Jomeen J (2004) The importance of assessing psychological status during pregnancy, childbirth and the postnatal period as a multidimensional construct: a literature review. J Clin Eff Nurs 8:143–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones K (2004) Mission drift in qualitative research, or moving toward a systematic review of qualitative studies, moving back to a more systematic narrative review. Qual Rep 9(1):95–112Google Scholar
  17. Kelly C, Form A, Wright A (2007) Improving mental health literacy as a strategy to facilitate early intervention for mental disorders. MJA 187:S26–S30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. KNOV (2010) Advies ontwikkeling wetenschapsdomein fysiologische verloskunde. [Advice for science development of physiological midwifery]. Koninklijke Nederlandse Organisatie van Verloskundigen, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  19. Mojtabai R (2010) Mental illness stigma and willingness to seek mental health care in the European Union. Soc Psychiatr Epidemiol 45:705–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nast I, Bolten M, Meinlschmidt G, Helhammer D (2013) How to measure prenatal stress? A systematic review of psychometric instruments to assess psychosocial stress during pregnancy. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 27:313–322CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. OCEBM. Oxford centre for evidence-based medicine table of evidence working group (2011) The Oxford 2011 levels of evidence. Oxford, Oxford centre for evidence-based medicine. http://www.cebm.net/index?o=5653. Accessed 28 Jan 2015
  22. PRN (2013) The Netherlands perinatal registry trends 1999–2012. Stichting Perinatale Registratie, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  23. Ross-Davie M, Elliot S, Sarkar A, Green L (2006) A public health role in perinatal mental health: are midwives ready? Br J Midwifery 14(6):330–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Singer L, Fulton S, Davillier M, Koshy D, Salvator A, Baley J (2003) Effects of infant risk status and maternal psychological distress on maternal-infant interactions during the first year of life. J Dev Behav Pediatr 24(4):233–241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Stuurgroep zwangerschap en geboorte (2009) Een goed begin, Adviesrapport. (Dutch Steering Committee Pregnancy and Birth. A Good Beginning, Advisory Report). VWS, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  26. Svensson J, Barclay L, Cooke M (2009) Randomised-controlled trial of two antenatal education programmes. Midwifery 24:114–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Van Splunteren P, Franx G, Hermens M (2014) Werken met de vernieuwd zorgp (working with new carep). DeEerstelijns December 12–13Google Scholar
  28. Wright J (2007) A practical guide to assigning levels of evidence. J Bone Joint Surg 89(5):1128–1130PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yvonne Fontein-Kuipers
    • 1
  • Evelien van Limbeek
    • 1
  • Marlein Ausems
    • 1
  • Raymond de Vries
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Marianne Nieuwenhuijze
    • 1
  1. 1.Midwifery Education and Studies Maastricht-ZUYDResearch Department Midwifery ScienceMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Maastricht University Medical Centre/CAPHRIMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in MedicineUniversity of Michigan Medical SchoolAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations