"The anxiety coming up to every scan-It destroyed me": A qualitative study of the lived experience of cytomegalovirus infection during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence supporting the use of valaciclovir to reduce fetal infection after maternal primary cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection has stimulated interest in routine CMV serological screening in pregnancy. It is important to understand the healthcare consumer perspective of a CMV infection during pregnancy to minimize unintended harms of screening. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with Australian women who had a lived experience of CMV infection following serological testing during pregnancy. Participants were recruited via social media and healthcare consumer networks, and purposively selected to capture a range of perinatal outcomes. Interview transcripts were analyzed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Twelve participants were interviewed: 6 had a live birth, 4 had terminations of pregnancy, 1 had a neonatal death and 1 was pregnant at the time of interview. Four major categories emerged from the analysis. Women reported a lack of CMV awareness among themselves, their social networks, and among their health care providers. The participants described their experience as "hard" and "stressful". Uncertainty and variability characterized their clinical decision-making process. The pregnancy and postpartum periods were marked by ongoing anxiety about the long-term impacts of CMV. Women supported screening for CMV, decision making and reproductive choice, but acknowledged that routine testing may not be desired by everyone and may increase stress and terminations of pregnancy. Important coping strategies included obtaining support from partners, family, and other families with lived experience of CMV, as well as having access to knowledgeable and sensitive healthcare professionals. CONCLUSION: Serological diagnosis of maternal CMV infection during pregnancy can have severe and prolonged psychological impacts on parents, regardless of the pregnancy outcome. Improving healthcare professionals' knowledge and public awareness are essential before widespread serological screening can be responsibly introduced. Healthcare administrators that are considering implementing a prenatal screening program for secondary prevention of fetal CMV infection should pay attention to consumer perspectives to minimize unintended harms to women and their families.

Personal barriers to addressing intimate partner abuse: a qualitative meta-synthesis of healthcare practitioners' experiences.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare practitioners (HCPs) play a crucial role in recognising, responding to, and supporting female patients experiencing intimate partner abuse (IPA). However, research consistently identifies barriers they perceive prevent them from doing this work effectively. These barriers can be system-based (e.g. lack of time or training) or personal/individual. This review of qualitative evidence aims to synthesise the personal barriers that impact HCPs' responses to IPA. METHODS: Five databases were searched in March 2020. Studies needed to utilise qualitative methods for both data collection and analysis and be published between 2010 and 2020 in order to qualify for inclusion; however, we considered any type of healthcare setting in any country. Article screening, data extraction and methodological appraisal using a modified version of the Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist for qualitative studies were undertaken by at least two independent reviewers. Data analysis drew on Thomas and Harden's thematic synthesis approach. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies conducted in 20 countries informed the final review. A variety of HCPs and settings were represented. Three themes were developed that describe the personal barriers experienced by HCPs: I can't interfere (which describes the belief that IPA is a "private matter" and HCPs' fears of causing harm by intervening); I don't have control (highlighting HCPs' frustration when women do not follow their advice); and I won't take responsibility (which illuminates beliefs that addressing IPA should be someone else's job). CONCLUSION: This review highlights the need for training to address personal issues in addition to structural or organisational barriers. Education and training for HCPs needs to: encourage reflection on their own values to reinforce their commitment to addressing IPA; teach HCPs to relinquish the need to control outcomes so that they can adopt an advocacy approach; and support HCPs' trust in the critical role they can play in responding. Future research should explore effective ways to do this within the context of complex healthcare organisations.