A systematic review on the acceptability of perinatal XXXX screening.

@entity1 @entity308
BACKGROUND: Perinatal @entity308 (PND) affects approximately 10-15% of @entity1 , worldwide. PND screening, using screening tools, has been undertaken by a broad range of healthcare professionals in different settings. Our objective was to explore the acceptability of PND screening and how acceptability was being assessed. METHODS: A systematic literature review of studies that explored the acceptability of PND screening was carried out throughout MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Maternity and @entity1 Care and Joanna Briggs Institute databases. RESULTS: Twenty-eight out of twenty-nine publications reported PND screening to be acceptable to most @entity1 . A wide range of terms, questions and statements was used to infer, assess or report on acceptability. There was no uniform, psychometrically tested tool used to measure acceptability across the studies. LIMITATIONS: Broad inclusion criteria and methodological differences limited comparisons, but are overcome by the comprehensiveness of the data and the lack of uniformity across studies. CONCLUSIONS: Even though PND screening appears acceptable, it is difficult to draw conclusions about PND screening acceptability as studies used different methods to infer, assess or report on acceptability. The lack of a uniform, psychometrically tested tool to measure acceptability is not unique to PND. Nonetheless, the majority of perinatal @entity1 and healthcare professionals reported positive attitudes towards PND screening using different tools in different settings, indicating that it may be the responsibility of all healthcare professionals who come into contact with perinatal @entity1 .
