Search

Background: Prenatal stress can have a negative effect on the quality of life (QoL) of pregnant women. Social support plays a vital role in improving the psychological well-being of pregnant women by enhancing their stress-coping ability. The current study assessed the association between social support and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) as well as the mediating role of social support in the linkage between perceived stress and HRQoL among pregnant Australian women. Methods: Secondary data was obtained from 493 women who reported being pregnant in survey six of the 1973–78 cohort of the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health (ALSWH). Social support and perceived stress were assessed using the Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Index (MOS-SSS-19) and the Perceived Stress Scale, respectively. The Mental Component Scale (MCS) and Physical Component Scale (PCS) of the SF-36 were used to examine the mental and physical HRQoL. A mediation model was used to examine the mediating effect of social support in the relationship between perceived stress and HRQoL. A multivariate quantile regression (QR) model was used to assess the association between social support and HRQoL after adjusting for potential confounders. Result: The mean age of the pregnant women was 35.8 years. The mediational analysis revealed that emotional/informational support (β= -1.53; 95% CI: -2.36, -0.78), tangible support (β= -0.64; 95% CI: -1.29, -0.09), and affectionate support/positive social interaction (β= -1.33; 95% CI: -2.25, -0.48), played a significant mediating role in the relationship between perceived stress and mental health-related QoL. In addition, perceived stress had a significant indirect effect on mental health-related QoL through overall social support (β = -1.38; 95% CI: -2.28, -0.56), and the mediator accounted for approximately 14.3% of the total effect. The multivariate QR analysis indicated that all the domains of social support and overall social support scores were positively associated with higher MCS scores (p < 0.05). However, social support was found to have no significant association with PCS (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Social support plays a direct and mediating role in improving the HRQoL of pregnant Australian women. Maternal health professionals need to consider social support as an essential tool to improve the HRQoL of pregnant women. Further, as part of routine antenatal care activity, assessing pregnant women’s level of social support is beneficial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: International research shows marital status impacts the mental health of pregnant women, with prenatal depression and anxiety being higher among non-partnered women. However, there have been few studies examining the relationship between marital status and prenatal mental disorders among Australian women.Methods: This is a population-based retrospective cohort study using linked data from the New South Wales (NSW) Perinatal Data Collection (PDC) and Admitted Patients Data Collection (APDC). The cohort consists of a total of 598,599 pregnant women with 865,349 admissions. Identification of pregnant women for mental disorders was conducted using the 10th version International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Australian Modification (ICD-10-AM). A binary logistic regression model was used to estimate the relationship between marital status and prenatal mental disorder after adjusting for confounders.Results: Of the included pregnant women, 241 (0.04%), 107 (0.02%) and 4359 (0.5%) were diagnosed with depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and self-harm, respectively. Non-partnered pregnant women had a higher likelihood of depressive disorder (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) = 2.75; 95% CI: 2.04, 3.70) and anxiety disorder (AOR = 3.16, 95% CI: 2.03, 4.91), compared with partnered women. Furthermore, the likelihood of experiencing self-harm was two times higher among non-partnered pregnant women (AOR = 2.00; 95% CI: 1.82, 2.20) than partnered pregnant women.Conclusions: Non-partnered marital status has a significant positive association with prenatal depressive disorder, anxiety disorder and self-harm. This suggests it would be highly beneficial for maternal health care professionals to screen non-partnered pregnant women for prenatal mental health problems such as depression, anxiety and self-harm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Antenatal depression and antenatal anxiety adversely affect several obstetric and foetal outcomes, and increase the rate of postnatal mental illness. Thus, to tackle these challenges the need for social support during pregnancy is vital. However, an extensive literature search failed to show a published study on the relationship between domains of social support and antenatal depressive, as well as antenatal anxiety symptoms in Australia. This study examined the association between domains of social support and antenatal depressive and anxiety symptoms among Australian women.Methods: The current study used data obtained from the 1973-78 cohort of the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health (ALSWH), focusing upon women who reported being pregnant (n = 493). Depression and anxiety were assessed using the 10 item Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CES-D-10) scale, and the 9-item Goldberg Anxiety and Depression scale (GADS) respectively. The 19 item-Medical Outcomes Study Social Support index (MOSS) was used to assess social support. A logistic regression model was used to examine the associations between domains of social support and antenatal depressive and anxiety symptoms after adjusting for potential confounders.Result: The current study found 24.7 and 20.9% of pregnant women screened positive for depressive and anxiety symptoms respectively. After adjusting for potential confounders, our study found that the odds of antenatal depressive symptoms was about four and threefold higher among pregnant women who reported low emotional/informational support (AOR = 4.75; 95% CI: 1.45, 15.66; p = 0.010) and low social support (overall support) (AOR = 3.26; 95%CI: 1.05, 10.10, p = 0.040) respectively compared with their counterpart. In addition, the odds of antenatal anxiety symptoms was seven times higher among pregnant women who reported low affectionate support/positive social interaction (AOR = 7.43; 95%CI: 1.75, 31.55; p = 0.006).Conclusion: A considerable proportion of pregnant Australian women had depressive symptoms and/or anxiety symptoms, which poses serious health concerns. Low emotional/informational support and low affectionate support/positive social interaction have a significant association with antenatal depressive and anxiety symptoms respectively. As such, targeted screening of expectant women for social support is essential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A wide range of health care options are utilised by pregnant women in Australia. The out-of-pocket costs of maternity care in Australia vary depending on many factors including model of care utilised, health insurance coverage, and women's decision to access health services outside of conventional maternity care provision.Methods: Women from the 1973-78 cohort of the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health (ALSWH) who identified as pregnant or as recently having given birth in 2009 were invited to complete a sub-study questionnaire investigating health service utilisation during their most recent pregnancy.Results: A total of 1,835 women agreed to participate in the sub-study. The majority of women (99.8%) consulted with a conventional health care practitioner during pregnancy, 49.4% consulted with a complementary and alternative medicine practitioner at least once during pregnancy and 89.6% of the women used a complementary and alternative medicine product. Women reported an average of AUD$781.10 in out-of-pocket expenses for consultations with conventional health care practitioners, AUD$185.40 in out-of-pocket expenses for consultations with complementary and alternative medicine practitioners and AUD$179.60 in out-of-pocket expenses for complementary and alternative medicine products. From the study data we estimate Australian pregnant women spend over AUD$337 M on out-of-pocket health services.Conclusion: While the majority of pregnant women in Australia may obtain health services via the publically-funded health care system and/or private health insurance coverage, our analysis identifies substantial out-of-pocket expenditure for health care by pregnant women - a trend in public spending for maternity care of importance to policy makers, health administrators, and health professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The outcomes for women who give birth in hospital compared with at home are the subject of ongoing debate. We aimed to determine whether a retrospective linked data study using routinely collected data was a viable means to compare perinatal and maternal outcomes and interventions in labour by planned place of birth at the onset of labour in one Australian state. Methods: A population-based cohort study was undertaken using routinely collected linked data from the New South Wales Perinatal Data Collection, Admitted Patient Data Collection, Register of Congenital Conditions, Registry of Birth Deaths and Marriages and the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Eight years of data provided a sample size of 258,161 full-term women and their infants. The primary outcome was a composite outcome of neonatal mortality and morbidity as used in the Birthplace in England study. Results: Women who planned to give birth in a birth centre or at home were significantly more likely to have a normal labour and birth compared with women in the labour ward group. There were no statistically significant differences in stillbirth and early neonatal deaths between the three groups, although we had insufficient statistical power to test reliably for these differences. Conclusion: This study provides information to assist the development and evaluation of different places of birth across Australia. It is feasible to examine perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth using routinely collected linked data, although very large data sets will be required to measure rare outcomes associated with place of birth in a low risk population, especially in countries like Australia where homebirth rates are low. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is little known about women's concurrent use of conventional and complementary health care during pregnancy, particularly consultation patterns with complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). This study examines health service utilisation among pregnant women including consultations with obstetricians, midwives, general practitioners (GPs) and CAM practitioners. Methods: A sub-study of pregnant women (n=2445) was undertaken from the nationally-representative Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health (ALSWH). Women's consultations with conventional practitioners (obstetricians, GPs and midwives) and CAM practitioners for pregnancy-related health conditions were analysed. The analysis included Pearson chi-square tests to compare categorical variables. Results: The survey was completed by 1835 women (response rate = 79.2%). A substantial number (49.4%) of respondents consulted with a CAM practitioner for pregnancy-related health conditions. Many participants consulted only with a CAM practitioner for assistance with certain conditions such as neck pain (74.6%) and sciatica (40.4%). Meanwhile, women consulted both CAM practitioners and conventional maternity health professionals (obstetricians, midwives and GPs) for back pain (61.8%) and gestational diabetes (22.2%). Women visiting a general practitioner (GP) 3-4 times for pregnancy care were more likely to consult with acupuncturists compared with those consulting a GP less often (p=<0.001, x2=20.5). Women who had more frequent visits to a midwife were more likely to have consulted with an acupuncturist (p=<0.001, x2=18.9) or a doula (p=<0.001, x2=23.2) than those visiting midwives less frequently for their pregnancy care. Conclusions: The results emphasise the necessity for a considered and collaborative approach to interactions between pregnant women, conventional maternity health providers and CAM practitioners to accommodate appropriate information transferral and co-ordinated maternity care. The absence of sufficient clinical evidence regarding many commonly used CAM practices during pregnancy also requires urgent attention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]