↓ Skip to main content

Implementation of depression screening in antenatal clinics through tablet computers: results of a feasibility study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
196 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Implementation of depression screening in antenatal clinics through tablet computers: results of a feasibility study
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12911-017-0459-8
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Mobile devices may facilitate depression screening in the waiting area of antenatal clinics. This can present implementation challenges, of which we focused on survey layout and technology deployment. We assessed the feasibility of using tablet computers to administer a socio-demographic survey, the Whooley questions and the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) to 530 pregnant women attending National Health Service (NHS) antenatal clinics across England. We randomised participants to one of two layout versions of these surveys: (i) a scrolling layout where each survey was presented on a single screen; or (ii) a paging layout where only one question appeared on the screen at any given time. Overall, 85.10% of eligible pregnant women agreed to take part. Of these, 90.95% completed the study procedures. Approximately 23% of participants answered Yes to at least one Whooley question, and approximately 13% of them scored 10 points of more on the EPDS. We observed no association between survey layout and the responses given to the Whooley questions, the median EPDS scores, the number of participants at increased risk of self-harm, and the number of participants asking for technical assistance. However, we observed a difference in the number of participants at each EPDS scoring interval (p = 0.008), which provide an indication of a woman's risk of depression. A scrolling layout resulted in faster completion times (median = 4 min 46 s) than a paging layout (median = 5 min 33 s) (p = 0.024). However, the clinical significance of this difference (47.5 s) is yet to be determined. Tablet computers can be used for depression screening in the waiting area of antenatal clinics. This requires the careful consideration of clinical workflows, and technology-related issues such as connectivity and security. An association between survey layout and EPDS scoring intervals needs to be explored further to determine if it corresponds to a survey layout effect. Future research needs to evaluate the effect of this type of antenatal depression screening on clinical outcomes and clinic workflows. This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT02516982 on 20 July 2015.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 196 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 196 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 12%
Student > Bachelor 19 10%
Researcher 19 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 33 17%
Unknown 73 37%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 29 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 14%
Computer Science 7 4%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Other 23 12%
Unknown 75 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 May 2017.
All research outputs
#8,615,308
of 27,273,687 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#760
of 2,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,753
of 331,543 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#12
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,273,687 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,221 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,543 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.