scholarly journals Public health nurses’ perceptions on promotive and risk factors for children’s mental health: A qualitative interview study

Author(s):  
Outi Savolainen ◽  
Marjorita Sormunen ◽  
Hannele Turunen
2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne-Mari Borg ◽  
Raili Salmelin ◽  
Matti Joukamaa ◽  
Tuula Tamminen

Background and Aims. Assessing young children’s mental health is a crucial and challenging task. The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical relevance of asking parents, nurses, and young children themselves to identify children’s mental health problems by only one or two questions.Methods. In regular health check-ups of 4- to 9-year-old children(n=2682), parents and public health nurses assessed by one question whether the child had any emotional or behavioral difficulties. The child completed a self-evaluation enquiry on his/her emotional well-being. A stratified proportion of the participating parents were invited to a diagnostic interview.Results. Sensitivities were fairly good for the parents’ (68%), nurses’ (65%), and their combined (79%) one-question screens. Difficulties identified by parents and nurses were major risks (OR 10–14) for any child psychiatric disorders(P<0.001). The child’s self-evaluation was related to 2-fold to 3-fold risks(P<0.05)for any psychiatric diagnosis, for any emotional diagnosis, and for negative situational factors.Conclusion. The one-question screen for parents and public health nurses together quite adequately identified the young children with mental health problems. The child’s self-evaluation provided relevant and complementary information on his/her mental health and especially emotional problems.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma Anderson ◽  
Amberly Brigden ◽  
Anna Davies ◽  
Emily Shepherd ◽  
Jenny Ingram

Abstract Background Covid-19 triggered the rapid roll-out of mass social distancing behavioural measures for infection control. Pregnant women were categorised as ‘at risk’ requiring extra vigilance with behavioural guidelines. Their understanding and ability to adhere to recommendations was unknown.Objectives To complete a behavioural analysis of the determinants of recommended social distancing behaviour in pregnant women, according to the ‘capability, opportunity, motivation and behaviour’ (‘COM-B’) model to inform the development of recommendations/materials to support pregnant women in understanding and adhering to behavioural guidelines.Design Qualitative interview study with pregnant women in the Bristol area (UK).Methods Semi-structured telephone/videoconference interviews were conducted following a topic guide informed by the COM-B model, transcribed verbatim and subjected to framework analysis. Infographic materials were iteratively produced with stakeholder consultation, to support pregnant women’s behaviour.Results Thirty-one women participated (selected for demographic range). Women reported adhering to social distancing recommendations and intended to continue. COM-B analysis identified gaps in understanding around risk, vulnerability, and the extent of required social distancing, as well as facilitators of social distancing behaviour (e.g. social support, motivation to stay safe, home environment/resources). Additional themes around detrimental mental health effects and changes to maternity healthcare from the social distancing measures were identified. Infographic resources (plus midwife report) addressing women’s key concerns were produced and disseminated.Conclusions The COM-B model provided useful details of determinants of pregnant women’s adherence to social distancing behaviours. The confusion of what being ‘at risk’ meant and varying interpretation of what was expected indicates a need for greater clarity around categories and guidance. The loss of maternity care and negative mental health effects of social distancing suggests a growing area of unmet health needs to be addressed in future.


2018 ◽  
Vol 69 (678) ◽  
pp. e8-e14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa Stepney ◽  
Paul Aveyard ◽  
Rachna Begh

BackgroundReports from royal colleges and organisations such as Public Health England suggest that GPs and nurses should advise patients to switch to electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) if they do not want to stop smoking using licensed medication. However, there are no data on what practitioners think, feel, or do about e-cigarettes.AimTo explore practitioners’ perceptions and attitudes towards e-cigarettes, and their experiences of discussing e-cigarettes with patients.Design and settingA qualitative interview study was carried out with semi-structured interviews conducted with nurses and GPs across England in 2017.MethodParticipants were interviewed once either via telephone or face to face. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsInterviews were conducted with 23 practitioners (eight nurses and 15 GPs). There were three key themes: ambivalence and uncertainty; pragmatism; and responsibility. Many practitioners had uncertainties about the safety and long-term risks of e-cigarettes. Some had ambivalence about their own knowledge and ability to advise on their use, as well as uncertainty about whether to and what to advise patients. Despite this, many sought to provide honesty in consultations by acknowledging these uncertainties about e-cigarettes with patients and taking a pragmatic approach, believing that e-cigarettes were a ‘step in the right direction’. Practitioners wanted advice from healthcare regulators such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to reassure them about the safety of e-cigarettes, practical tools to support the consultation, and to control their use by providing behavioural support programmes for reduction or cessation.ConclusionCurrent dissemination strategies for guidelines are not effective in reaching practitioners, who are offering more cautious advice about e-cigarettes than guidelines suggest is reasonable.


2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 219-241 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brenda J. Huber ◽  
Julie M. Austen ◽  
Renée M. Tobin ◽  
Adena B. Meyers ◽  
Kristal H. Shelvin ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Weich ◽  
Laura Griffith ◽  
Martin Commander ◽  
Hannah Bradby ◽  
S. P. Sashidharan ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document