Search

Background: A secure parent-infant relationship lays the foundations for children’s development, however there are currently no measurement tools recommended for clinical practice. We evaluated the clinical utility of a structured assessment of the parent-infant relationship (the Maternal Postnatal Attachment Scale, MPAS) in a deprived, multi-ethnic urban community in England. This paper answers the question: what are health visitors’ views on the parent-infant relationship, and experiences of piloting the MPAS? It explores the barriers and facilitators to implementation, and complements the paper on psychometric properties and representativeness reported in Dunn et al (2022). Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 health visitors and data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Health visitors saw identification and support of the parent-infant relationship as an important part of their role, and reported benefits of the MPAS, including opening conversation and identifying and reporting concerns. Challenges included timing and workload, the appropriateness of language, perceived intrusiveness and understanding of the questions, and the length of the tool. Suggestions for improvements to the tool were put forward. Conclusions: The experiences, benefits and challenges identified help to explain results in Dunn et al, and the wide-ranging challenges identified would hinder assessment of the parent-infant relationship in routine practice. Further work with health professionals and parents has been undertaken to co-produce an acceptable, feasible and reliable tool for clinical practice.

Background: Positive parent infant relationships are key to achieving long term child outcomes. Identifying parents who may need support is difficult because of a lack of robust assessment tools. Working in partnership with health services we piloted the Maternal Postnatal Attachment Scale (MPAS) in a deprived, multi-ethnic urban community in Bradford, UK. The pilot aimed to assess the clinical utility of MPAS to identify need for support: Was it administered to a representative group of women? Is MPAS valid for this population? Methods: Data were linked to a cohort study in the pilot area (Born in Bradford’s Better Start - BiBBS). Chi Square tests assessed sample representativeness (age, ethnicity, parity, English language, education, deprivation). Exploratory factor analysis explored MPAS’ validity. Results: 563 women in BiBBS were eligible, 210 (37%) completed MPAS. No differences were found between completers and non-completers, suggestive of a representative sample. In total, 336 women (including a number of women living in the service area who had not participated in BiBBS) completed MPAS in the pilot. MPAS had ceiling effects and a satisfactory factor structure could not be identified, indicating poor psychometric properties. Conclusions: Health visitors were successful in administering MPAS to a representative sample, but the lack of psychometric robustness indicates that MPAS is unsuitable for routine use in this setting. A gap for such a measure remains.