Digital Health Needs of Women With Postpartum Depression: Focus Group Study.

BACKGROUND: Although approximately 10% of new mothers in Canada develop postpartum depression (PPD), they face many barriers when accessing care. eHealth offers a unique opportunity to provide psychosocial skills and support to new mothers; however, patient populations are not consistently engaged in eHealth development processes. Thus, the diversity of women's backgrounds and needs are often not reflected in existing tools. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to engage women from a variety of backgrounds and locations around British Columbia (BC) who have previously experienced PPD to determine the unmet psychoeducational needs of women with PPD and how a web-enabled platform used to deliver psychosocial skills and education to assist in the management of PPD could fulfill those needs. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted in 7 cities across BC with a total of 31 women (mean age 34.5 years, SD 4.9), with each group ranging from 2-7 participants. Focus groups were cofacilitated by the study coordinator and a local service provider in each community using a semistructured guide to discuss participants' needs, ideas, and opinions as they relate to the use of technology in PPD management. Transcripts were approached inductively using thematic analysis to identify themes and qualitative description to frame what was observed in the data. RESULTS: A total of 5 themes were identified: bridging gaps to meet needs; providing validation to combat stigma; nurturing capacity to cope, manage, and/or reach wellness; empowering people to take ownership over their mental health; and offering customization to ensure relevance. Each theme identified a need (eg, combatting stigma) and a way to address that need using a web-enabled intervention (eg, providing validation). At the intersection of these themes was the overarching value of promoting agency for women experiencing PPD. CONCLUSIONS: Ultimately, new mothers require accessible mental health care that promotes their agency in mental health care decision making. Our participants believed that a web-enabled intervention could help meet this need. These data will be used to guide the design of such an intervention, with the eventual implementation of this resource as a first-line management option for PPD.

A qualitative analysis of a consensus process to develop quality indicators of injury care.

BACKGROUND: Consensus methodologies are often used to create evidence-based measures of healthcare quality because they incorporate both available evidence and expert opinion to fill gaps in the knowledge base. However, there are limited studies of the key domains that are considered during panel discussion when developing quality indicators. METHODS: We performed a qualitative content analysis of the discussions from a two-day international workshop of injury control and quality-of-care experts (19 panel members) convened to create a standardized set of quality indicators for injury care. The workshop utilized a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness method. Workshop proceedings were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We used constant comparative analysis to analyze the transcripts of the workshop to identify key themes. RESULTS: We identified four themes in the selection, development, and implementation of standardized quality indicators: specifying a clear purpose and goal(s) for the indicators to ensure relevant data elements were included, and that indicators could be used for system-wide benchmarking and improving patient outcomes; incorporating evidence, expertise, and patient perspectives to identify important clinical problems and potential measurement challenges; considering context and variations between centers in the health system that could influence either the relevance or application of an indicator; and contemplating data collection and management issues, including availability of existing data sources, quality of data, timeliness of data abstraction, and the potential role for primary data collection. CONCLUSION: Our study provides a description of the key themes of discussion among a panel of clinical, managerial, and data experts developing quality indicators. Consideration of these themes could help shape deliberation of future panels convened to develop quality indicators.