↓ Skip to main content

Implementation of depression screening in antenatal clinics through tablet computers: results of a feasibility study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Implementation of depression screening in antenatal clinics through tablet computers: results of a feasibility study
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12911-017-0459-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

José S. Marcano-Belisario, Ajay K. Gupta, John O’Donoghue, Paul Ramchandani, Cecily Morrison, Josip Car

Abstract

Mobile devices may facilitate depression screening in the waiting area of antenatal clinics. This can present implementation challenges, of which we focused on survey layout and technology deployment. We assessed the feasibility of using tablet computers to administer a socio-demographic survey, the Whooley questions and the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) to 530 pregnant women attending National Health Service (NHS) antenatal clinics across England. We randomised participants to one of two layout versions of these surveys: (i) a scrolling layout where each survey was presented on a single screen; or (ii) a paging layout where only one question appeared on the screen at any given time. Overall, 85.10% of eligible pregnant women agreed to take part. Of these, 90.95% completed the study procedures. Approximately 23% of participants answered Yes to at least one Whooley question, and approximately 13% of them scored 10 points of more on the EPDS. We observed no association between survey layout and the responses given to the Whooley questions, the median EPDS scores, the number of participants at increased risk of self-harm, and the number of participants asking for technical assistance. However, we observed a difference in the number of participants at each EPDS scoring interval (p = 0.008), which provide an indication of a woman's risk of depression. A scrolling layout resulted in faster completion times (median = 4 min 46 s) than a paging layout (median = 5 min 33 s) (p = 0.024). However, the clinical significance of this difference (47.5 s) is yet to be determined. Tablet computers can be used for depression screening in the waiting area of antenatal clinics. This requires the careful consideration of clinical workflows, and technology-related issues such as connectivity and security. An association between survey layout and EPDS scoring intervals needs to be explored further to determine if it corresponds to a survey layout effect. Future research needs to evaluate the effect of this type of antenatal depression screening on clinical outcomes and clinic workflows. This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT02516982 on 20 July 2015.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 123 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 19%
Researcher 19 15%
Student > Bachelor 16 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 27 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 22%
Psychology 27 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 9%
Computer Science 6 5%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 31 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 October 2017.
All research outputs
#4,020,871
of 15,402,399 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#401
of 1,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,032
of 267,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,402,399 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,395 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,134 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.