↓ Skip to main content

Diagnosis and management of perinatal depression and anxiety in general practice: a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
twitter
33 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
3 Mendeley
Title
Diagnosis and management of perinatal depression and anxiety in general practice: a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, July 2017
DOI 10.3399/bjgp17x691889
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth Ford, Suzanne Lee, Judy Shakespeare, Susan Ayers

Abstract

Up to 20% of women experience anxiety and depression during the perinatal period. In the UK, management of perinatal mental health falls under the remit of GPs. This review aimed at synthesising the available information from qualitative studies on GPs' attitudes, recognition, and management of perinatal anxiety and depression. Meta-synthesis of the available published qualitative evidence on GPs' recognition and management of perinatal anxiety and depression. A systematic search was conducted on Embase, Medline, PsycInfo, Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science, and grey literature was searched using Google, Google Scholar, and British Library EThOS. Papers and reports were eligible for inclusion if they reported qualitatively on GPs' diagnosis or treatment of perinatal anxiety or depression. The synthesis was constructed using meta-ethnography. Five themes were established from five eligible papers: labels: diagnosing depression; clinical judgement versus guidelines; care and management; use of medication; and isolation: the role of other professionals. GPs considered perinatal depression to be a psychosocial phenomenon, and were reluctant to label disorders and medicalise distress. GPs relied on their own clinical judgement more than guidelines. They reported helping patients make informed choices about treatment, and inviting them back regularly for GP visits. GPs sometimes felt isolated when dealing with perinatal mental health issues. GPs often do not have timely access to appropriate psychological therapies and use several strategies to mitigate this shortfall. Training must focus on these issues and must be evaluated to consider whether this makes a difference to outcomes for patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 3 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 3 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer 1 33%
Other 1 33%
Researcher 1 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 2 67%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 67. 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 09 October 2017.
All research outputs
#142,949
of 8,523,120 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#57
of 1,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,227
of 235,734 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#12
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,523,120 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,992 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 235,734 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.