Showing posts with label reproductive health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reproductive health. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

more? funds

Dear Boris,
Dear Victoria,

We are sorry to hear that you won’t be able to attend the conference.
Thank you for letting us know.

Kind regards,
Rozemarijn

this is from ESHMS-Reproductive health sessions, add to previous

ответ Керзона (экономического ф-та):
Добрый день, Борис Петрович!
Мне передали Ваше письмо о заявках на оплату командировок. К сожалению, Ваши заявки на оплату не были одобрены членами Ученого совета.
а перед этим Аузан сделал заявление, что командировочный фонд плохо расходуется, но это уже совсем (more or less) другая история

Tuesday, February 16, 2016

Saturday, February 6, 2016

Screening for perinatal depression: a missed opportunity

All pregnant and post-partum women should be routinely screened for depression, according to a new statement from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). This controversial recommendation is part of the USPSTF's updated 2016 guidance recommending routine screening for depression in adults, published on Jan 26, which for the first time has been expanded to include information related to pregnant and post-partum women. The task force's proposals were widely welcomed by the mainstream media—but given the limited evidence in this area, are such bold recommendations warranted?

According to the task force statement, “direct and indirect evidence support moderate certainty that screening for depression in pregnant and postpartum women is of moderate net benefit”, citing reductions in risk of depression of 28–59% in post-partum women who underwent screening. However, these conclusions are at odds with recommendations from other countries. Expert groups in Canada and the UK, for example, have evaluated the same body of literature and concluded that high-quality evidence to support routine perinatal screening for depression is scarce. Notably, as stated in the USPSTF report, five of the six studies included in the assessment of the effects of depression screening on health outcomes were of only fair quality, none compared simply screening plus usual care versus usual care alone, and the reduction in risk of depression in pregnant women was not statistically significant.

Furthermore, for a screening test to be suitable for use in clinical practice, it must be simple and accurate with an acceptable risk of false-positive and false-negative results. But the most commonly used screening instrument—the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale—is lengthy to administer and has a positive predictive value for detecting major depressive disorder of just 47–64%, running the risk that a substantial proportion of women could be falsely labelled as having depression. This situation is potentially dangerous. Results of qualitative studies suggest that women are extremely concerned about depression screening, about the stigma associated with a diagnosis of depression, and that a positive result might lead to an automatic social service referral, and potentially removal of their baby. Only one trial in the USPSTF review reported on the potential harms of screening, but noted no harmful effects. Clearly, high-quality randomised controlled trials of screening programmes that include access to interventions, with a thorough assessment of the potential adverse effects, are needed before widespread screening can be advocated.

Information about the financial costs of perinatal depression screening is a glaring omission from the USPSTF statement. The high rate of false-positive screenings could also lead to costly referrals, unnecessary diagnostic assessments, and possibly treatment for some women incorrectly identified as depressed. Access to care is problematic in some countries, notably the USA, especially for marginalised people such as the large undocumented immigrant population, who cannot even get access to basic maternity care. Funds might be better spent on improving care for these disadvantaged groups.

Identification of perinatal depression is undoubtedly important. As highlighted in the Lancet Series on perinatal mental health, depressive disorders are common during pregnancy and the post-partum period: the point prevalence of major depressive disorder is about 5% during pregnancy and in the first 3 months after childbirth in women from high-income countries, and prevalence is generally higher in low-income and middle-income countries. Maternal depression is associated with a range of negative child outcomes, which can persist into adolescence and adulthood, and about a third of women who develop postnatal depression still have depression beyond the first year after giving birth. However, to merely focus on identification of depressive disorders during pregnancy and the post-partum period is a missed opportunity. Other mental health disorders can also occur—for example, studies suggest that anxiety disorders are more common than depressive disorders during pregnancy and the postnatal period—and the regular appointments that take place during pregnancy and post partum are an ideal opportunity to fully address the whole range of mental health disorders that can present during this time.

Routine screening for depressive disorders in pregnancy and post partum could potentially be harmful. The pregnancy and postnatal period is an opportunity to maximise the health of women and their families. But this needs to be done through sensitive enquiry in the context of a broader conversation about the physical and mental health wellbeing of mothers.

Stillbirth

The silence around stillbirth is unspeakable

7,200 lives are lost every day to stillbirths. Imagine if we could reduce that number and stop this epidemic of grief. Learn what The Lancet is doing to fight back.

and more:

upg

Saturday, January 30, 2016

Trends in Maternal Mortality, 4s

New estimates in Trends in Maternal Mortality 1990 to 2015 released by the UN Maternal Mortality Estimation Inter-agency Group (MMEIG) indicate that maternal mortality has fallen by 44 per cent since 1990.

Maternal deaths around the world dropped from about 532 000 in 1990 to an estimated 303 000 this year, according to the report, the last in a series that has looked at progress under the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). This equates to an estimated global maternal mortality ratio (MMR) of 216 maternal deaths per 100 000 live births, down from 385 in 1990.

Maternal mortality is defined as the death of a woman during pregnancy, childbirth or within 6 weeks after birth.

This new report is accompanied by a Lancet paper available online (Global, regional, and national levels and trends in maternal mortality between 1990 and 2015, with scenario-based projections to 2030: a systematic analysis by the UN Maternal Mortality Estimation Inter-Agency Group.
This new release provides the most up-to-date comprehensive information on maternal mortality worldwide, including a public database containing 3634 country-years of data for 183 countries taking into account all available nationally-representative data from vital registration systems, population censuses, household surveys, and sample registration systems.

About UN-MMEIG

The United Nations Maternal Mortality Estimation Inter-agency Group (MMEIG) was formed to share data on maternal mortality, harmonise estimates within the UN system, improve methods for maternal mortality estimation and generate internationally comparable MMR estimates. MMEIG, which is led by the World Health Organization (WHO), comprises the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the World Bank Group, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the World Bank Group and the United Nations Population Division (UNPD).

For more information, including estimates, empirical data and methodology, visit: http://www.maternalmortalitydata.org/

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

rhm call 4 papers

RHM call 4 papers

Examples of topics that can be addressed in this issue are:
  • Sex and sexual rights: consent, agency, responsibility and bodily integrity 
  • Intersection of gender identity, sexuality, sexual health and sexual rights
  • Sexual coercion, torture, violence and discrimination: effective responses
  • Who owns your body: forced marriage, FGM, trafficking
  • The role of information, education, attitude and services in realising sexual rights 
  • Consensual sexual behaviours and practices: the role of law and policy
  • Diverse relationship structures: legal and social recognition
  • The politics of sexual pleasure 
  • What is promiscuity and what is wrong with it?

Monday, August 4, 2014

Discrimination in Demographic Review

Just recently (five minutes ago) I have found a sign of how strongly and probably unconsciously Vishnevski dislikes me ;)
The new online demographic journal (subj) currently has three sections, according to the content our paper belongs to analytical one, but it does not sit there. Thanks a lot we are mentioned in the authors' section.
Real fun ;)
why?