ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Antenatal depressive and anxiety symptoms are common and may persist over time after delivery, with negative consequences on the mothers and their children. Evidence on the efficacy of psychological and pharmacological interventions during pregnancy aimed at preventing post-partum depression is controversial. METHODS: A consecutive sample of 318 women presenting for scheduled obstetric visits during pregnancy was screened for risk factors and anxiety or depressive symptoms. Based on the screening results, women were classified into three groups at increasing risk of post-partum depression (PPD) and were offered different interventions. RESULTS: Depressive or anxiety symptoms were found in 91 (28.6%) women, 89 (28.0%) had low risk of PPD and 138 (43.4%) had no risk of PPD. The multidisciplinary psychosocial interventions offered to women with clinical symptoms were well accepted, with an uptake of 76/91 (83.5%). Thirty-three women who did not improve with psychotherapy were offered sertraline or paroxetine as a second-line treatment: 7 accepted and 26 (78.8%) refused. Eleven women already on medication at baseline continued their treatment along with the MPI. The MPI interventions had some positive effects in terms of post-partum recovery, symptom reduction, and in preventing a new onset of depression. Among the 227 non-symptomatic during pregnancy, only 5 (2.2%) developed symptoms in the post-partum period. At 12 months post-partum, 84.6% of women who were symptomatic at 2 months post-partum recovered. LIMITATIONS: Our results should be interpreted in light of important limitations, including the lack of a control group that was not offered the MPI, the lack of information on the reasons for refusal and discontinuation and on the number of psychotherapy sessions attended. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings underscore the potential usefulness of MPI in recognizing early signs or symptoms during pregnancy and the advantage of building specific interventions for preventing post-natal depression. The MPI has positive effects on women with depressive or anxiety symptoms during pregnancy, that however did not exceed significantly those observed in women who refused the intervention. Thus, in the absence of a control group, our results are preliminary and warrant confirmation and testing in future randomized clinical trials.
Subject(s)
Anxiety/therapy , Depression/therapy , Mothers/psychology , Perinatal Care/methods , Pregnancy Complications/therapy , Adult , Antidepressive Agents/therapeutic use , Anxiety/diagnosis , Anxiety/psychology , Combined Modality Therapy , Depression/diagnosis , Depression/psychology , Depression, Postpartum/diagnosis , Depression, Postpartum/prevention & control , Depression, Postpartum/psychology , Female , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Paroxetine/therapeutic use , Patient Acceptance of Health Care , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications/diagnosis , Pregnancy Complications/psychology , Psychotherapy , Risk Factors , Sertraline/therapeutic use , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Physical restraint is frequently used in the intensive care setting but little is known regarding its clinical scenario and effectiveness in preventing adverse events (AEs), defined as device removal. METHODS: We carried out a prospective observational study in three Intensive Care Units on 120 adult high-risk patients. The effectiveness of physical restraint was evaluated using the propensity score methodology in order to obtain comparable groups. RESULTS: Physical restraint was applied in 1371 of 3256 (43%) nurse shifts accounting for 120 patients. Substantial agitation, the nurse's judgement of insufficient sedation and sedative drug reduction were positively associated with physical restraint, whereas the presence of analgesics at admission, increased disease gravity and the treating hospital as the most substantial variable showed a negative association. Eighty-six AEs were observed in 44 patients. Quiet (SAS=1-4), unrestrained patients accounted for 40 cases, and agitated (SAS≥5) but physically restrained patients for 17 cases. The presence of any type of physical restraint had a protective effect against any type of AE (OR=0.28; CI 0.16-0.51). The observed AEs showed a limited impact on the patients' course of illness. No physical harm related to physical restraint was reported. CONCLUSION: Physical restraint efficiently averts AEs. Its application is mainly driven by local habits. Typically, the almost recovered, apparently calm and hence unrestrained patient is at greatest risk for undesirable device removal. The control/interpretation of the patient's analgo-sedation might be inappropriate.
