English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  There is increasing awareness that perinatal psychosocial adversity experienced by mothers, children, and their families, may influence health and well-being across the life course. To maximise the impact of population-based interventions for optimising perinatal wellbeing, health services can utilise empirical methods to identify subgroups at highest risk of poor outcomes relative to the overall population.    Methods  This study sought to identify sub-groups using latent class analysis within a population of mothers in Sydney, Australia, based on their differing experience of self-reported indicators of psychosocial adversity. This study sought to identify sub-groups using latent class analysis within a population of mothers in Sydney, Australia, based on their differing experience of self-reported indicators of psychosocial adversity. Subgroup differences in antenatal and postnatal depressive symptoms were assessed using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale.    Results  Latent class analysis identified four distinct subgroups within the cohort, who were distinguished empirically on the basis of their native language, current smoking status, previous involvement with Family-and-Community Services (FaCS), history of child abuse, presence of a supportive partner, and a history of intimate partner psychological violence. One group consisted of socially supported ‘local’ women who speak English as their primary language (Group L), another of socially supported ‘migrant’ women who speak a language other than English as their primary language (Group M), another of socially stressed ‘local’ women who speak English as their primary language (Group Ls), and socially stressed ‘migrant’ women who speak a language other than English as their primary language (Group Ms.). Compared to local and not socially stressed residents (L group), the odds of antenatal depression were nearly three times higher for the socially stressed groups (Ls OR: 2.87 95%CI 2.10–3.94) and nearly nine times more in the Ms. group (Ms OR: 8.78, 95%CI 5.13–15.03). Antenatal symptoms of depression were also higher in the not socially stressed migrant group (M OR: 1.70 95%CI 1.47–1.97) compared to non-migrants. In the postnatal period, Group M was 1.5 times more likely, while the Ms. group was over five times more likely to experience suboptimal mental health compared to Group L (OR 1.50, 95%CI 1.22–1.84; and OR 5.28, 95%CI 2.63–10.63, for M and Ms. respectively).    Conclusions  The application of empirical subgrouping analysis permits an informed approach to targeted interventions and resource allocation for optimising perinatal maternal wellbeing.

Psychosocial stratification of antenatal indicators to guide population-based programs in perinatal depression