Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 97, Issue 3, pp 191–196 | Cite as

Predictors of Acceptance of a Postpartum Public Health Nurse Home Visit

Findings from an Ontario Survey
  • Wendy A. Sword
  • Paul D. Krueger
  • M. Susan Watt
Research

Abstract

Objectives: To determine 1) rates of offer and uptake of a home visit provided through Ontario’s universal Hospital Stay and Postpartum Home Visiting Program, and 2) predictors of acceptance of a home visit.

Methods: Women were eligible to participate if they had given birth vaginally to a live singleton infant, were being discharged with the infant to their care, were competent to give consent, and could communicate in one of the four study languages. A self-report questionnaire was used to collect data from 1,250 women recruited from five hospitals across the province; 890 (71.2%) women completed a structured telephone interview 4 weeks following discharge.

Results: Most women (81.4% to 97.8%) reported having received a telephone call from a public health nurse, although not necessarily within 48 hours of discharge. While the offer of a home visit reportedly was high across sites, there were statistically significant differences in rates of acceptance (40.8% to 76.2%). Important predictors of acceptance were first live birth, lower social support, lower maternal rating of services in labour and delivery, poorer maternal self-reported health, probable postpartum depression, lower maternal rating of services on the postpartum unit, and breastfeeding initiation.

Conclusion: The home visiting component of the universal program is reaching most women through telephone follow-up. However, rates of acceptance of a home visit differed greatly across study sites. The findings suggest that it is women with specific problems or needs who are accepting a visit. Further research is necessary to guide the development of evidence-based programs and policies regarding postpartum nurse home visits.

MeSH terms

Postpartum women postpartum programs nursing public health home visits 

Résumé

p ]Objectifs: 1) Déterminer l’offre et la demande des visites à domicile fournies par l’entremise d’un programme universel de l’Ontario appelé Hospital Stay and Postpartum Home Visiting Program, et 2) cerner les variables prédictives de l’acceptation, par les mères venant d’accoucher, d’une visite à domicile.

Méthode: Le programme s’adressait aux femmes ayant accouché par voie vaginale d’un bébé unique né vivant, ayant reçu leur congé de l’hôpital avec leur nourrisson, capables de donner un consentement, et pouvant communiquer dans l’une des quatre langues de l’étude. Au moyen d’un questionnaire d’auto-évaluation, nous avons recueilli des données auprès de 1 250 femmes recrutées dans cinq hôpitaux de la province; 890 femmes (71,2 %) ont répondu à une entrevue téléphonique semi-structurée quatre semaines après leur sortie de l’hôpital.

Résultats: La plupart des femmes (entre 81,4 % et 97,8 %) ont dit avoir reçu un appel téléphonique d’une infirmière hygiéniste, mais pas nécessairement dans un délai de 48 heures après leur sortie. L’offre d’une visite à domicile était uniformément élevée, mais nous avons constaté des écarts significatifs dans les taux d’acceptation (qui variaient entre 40,8 % et 76,2 %). Les principales variables prédictives de l’acceptation d’une visite à domicile étaient la naissance d’un premier enfant vivant, la faiblesse du soutien social, l’opinion maternelle relativement mauvaise des services reçus pendant le travail et l’accouchement, un état de santé maternel relativement mauvais selon l’intéressée, la probabilité de dépression du post-partum, l’opinion maternelle relativement mauvaise des services offerts par l’unité post-partum, et le taux d’allaitement maternel.

Conclusion: Le volet des visites à domicile de ce programme universel est mis à la portée de la plupart des femmes par le biais d’un suivi téléphonique. Cependant, les taux d’acceptation des visites varient beaucoup d’un endroit à l’autre. Cela donne à penser que les femmes qui éprouvent des problèmes ou qui ont des besoins particuliers sont celles qui acceptent qu’on leur rende visite. Il faudrait pousser la recherche pour orienter l’élaboration de programmes et de politiques fondés sur les résultats en ce qui concerne les visites à domicile post-partum effectuées par des infirmières.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kitzman H, Olds DL, Sidora K, Henderson CR Jr, Hanks C, Cole R, et al. Enduring effects of nurse home visitation on maternal life course. A 3-year follow-up of a randomized trial. JAMA 2000;283:1983–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Koniak-Griffin D, Verzemnieks IL, Anderson NLR, Brecht M, Lesser J, Kim S, Turner-Pluta C. Nurs Res 2003;52:127–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nguyen JD, Carson ML, Parris KM, Place P. A comparison pilot study of public health field nursing home visitation program interventions for pregnant Hispanic adolescents. Public Health Nurs 2003;20:412–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wager KA, Lee FW, Bradford WD, Jones W, Kilpatrick AO. Qualitative evaluation of South Carolina’s Postpartum/Infant Home Visit Program. Public Health Nurs 2004;21:541–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McNaughton DB. Nurse home visits to maternal-child clients: A review of intervention research. Public Health Nurs 2004;21:207–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kearney MH, York R, Deatrick JA. Effects of home visits to vulnerable young families. J Nurs Scholarship 2000;32:369–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Steel O’Connor KO, Mowat DL, Scott HM, Carr PA, Dorland JL, Young Tai KFW. A randomized trial of two public health nurse follow-up programs after early obstetrical discharge: An examination of breastfeeding rates, maternal confidence and utilization and costs of health services. Can J Public Health 2003;94:98–103.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Escobar GJ, Braveman PA, Ackerson L, Odouli R, Coleman-Phox K, Capra AM, et al. A randomized comparison of home visits and hospital-based group follow-up visits after early postpartum discharge. Pediatrics 2001;108:719–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elkan R, Robinson J, Williams D, Blair M. Universal vs. selective services: The case of British health visiting. J Adv Nurs 2001;33:113–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cox J, Holden JM, Sagovsky R. Detection of postnatal depression. Development of the 10-item Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Br J Psychiatry 1987;150:782–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cox J, Holden J. Perinatal Mental Health: A Guide to the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS). London: Gaskell, 2003.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Broadhead WE, Gehlbach SH, deGruy FV, Kaplan BH. The Duke-UNC Functional Social Support Questionnaire: Measurement of social support in family medicine patients. Med Care 1988;26:709–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Browne G, Arpin K, Corey P, Fitch M, Gafni A. Individual correlates of health service utilization and the cost of poor adjustment to chronic illness. Med Care 1990;28:43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cronin C. First-time mothers — identifying their needs, perceptions and experiences. J Clin Nurs 2003;12:260–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hupcey JE, Morse JM. Can a professional relationship be considered social support? Nurs Outlook 1997;45:270–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thompson JF, Roberts CL, Currie M, Ellwood DA. Prevalence and persistence of health problems after childbirth: Associations with parity and method of birth. Birth 2002;29:83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    O’Hare M, Swain A. Rates and risk of post-partum depression — a meta-analysis. Int Rev Psychiatry 1996;8: 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Watt S, Sword W, Krueger P, Sheehan D. A cross-sectional study of early identification of postpartum depression: Implications for primary care providers from The Ontario Mother & Infant Survey. BioMed Central 2002;3:5.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Binns CW, Scott JA. Breastfeeding: Reasons for starting, reasons for stopping and problems along the way. Breastfeeding Rev 2002;10:13–19.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mozingo JM, Davis MW, Droppleman PG, Merideth A. “It wasn’t working”: Women’s experiences with short-term breastfeeding. MCN: Am J Maternal/Child Nurs 2000;25:120–26.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shaw-Flach A. Management of common breastfeeding problems. Community Practitioner 2002;75:432–35.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pascoe GC. Patient satisfaction in primary health care: A literature review and analysis. Evaluation and Program Planning 1983;6:185–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sword W, Watt S, Krueger P, Lee KS, Sheehan D, Roberts J, Gafni A. Understanding newborn infant readmission: Findings of The Ontario Mother and Infant Survey. Can J Public Health 2001;92:196–200.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Edwards N, Mill J, Kothari AR. Multiple intervention research programs in community health. Can J Nurs Res 2004;36:40–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wendy A. Sword
    • 1
    • 2
  • Paul D. Krueger
    • 1
    • 3
  • M. Susan Watt
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Nursing HSc 3H48BMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.Hamilton Public Health and Community Services DepartmentPublic Health Research, Education and Development (PHRED) ProgramCanada
  3. 3.St. Joseph’s Health System Research NetworkHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations