 study. The group consisted of pregnant women (n = 4), women who had a child under the age of three (n = 6), and women who were both pregnant and had a child under the age of three (n = 5). Participants valued the KMMS for its narrative-based approach to screening that explored the individual’s risk and protective factors. While support for the KMMS was apparent, particular qualities of the administering health care professional were viewed as critical to the tool being well received and culturally safe. Building on these findings, we will work with our partner health services in the Pilbara to validate the KMMS with Pilbara Aboriginal women.
Our paper ‘Why validation is not enough’ looks at what happens after a new screening tool (the KMMS) has been validated. It explores the views of health care professionals and intended end users (in this case Aboriginal women who held administrative, professional or executive roles) to explore the trajectory for clinical implementation and use. This paper highlights some of the complexities involved in implementing a culturally secure perinatal mental health screening tool. Time constraints and a perception that the KMMS is only appropriate for women with literacy issues were identified by health professionals as significant barriers to KMMS uptake. In contrast the Aboriginal women interviewed considered the KMMS to be important for literate Aboriginal women and placed high value on having the time and space to ‘yarn’ with health professionals about issues that are important to them. Aboriginal women identified the KMMS as holistic, which aligned with their views and expectations of culturally safe care. The KMMS (along with the Here and Now assessment) are the only two Aboriginal specific mental health tools that inductively and iteratively build risk profiles that are focused on a patient’s strengths and resiliency, not just deficits.
Throughout the study we identified a range of practical improvements that would assist with the KMMS implementation including: a KMMS graphic make over, a rewrite of the user manual and training program, and improvements relating to the KMMS on electronic medical record systems.
Emma Carlin, Sarah J. Blondell, Yvonne Cadet-James, Sandra Campbell, Melissa Williams, Catherine Engelke, Des Taverner, Rhonda Marriott, Karen Edmonds, David Atkinson and Julia V. Marley. Study protocol: Improving mental health screening for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander pregnant women and mothers of young children. BMC Public Health 2019; 9: 1521. Available from: https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-019-7845-3
Emma Carlin, David Atkinson and Julia V Marley. ‘Having a Quiet Word’: Yarning with Aboriginal Women in the Pilbara Region of Western Australia about Mental Health and Mental Health Screening during the Perinatal Period. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16: 4253. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16214253
Emma Carlin, Erica Spry, David Atkinson, Julia V Marley. Why validation is not enough: setting the scene for the implementation of the Kimberley Mum’s Mood Scale. PloS ONE 2020;15(6):e0234346. Available from: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/authors?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234346
Emma Carlin, Kimberley H. Seear, Katherine Ferrari, Erica Spry, David Atkinson, Julia V. Marley. Risk and resilience: a mixed methods investigation of Aboriginal Australian women’s perinatal mental health screening assessments. Social Psychiatry Psychiatric Epidemiology (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-020-01986-7.
Protocol Study Paper – peer reviewed publication (613 KB)
‘Having a quiet word’ – peer reviewed publication (290 KB)
‘Having a quiet word’ – plain language report for community (129 KB)
‘Having a quiet word’ – plain language report for staff (130 KB)
‘Why validation is not enough’ – peer reviewed publication (635 MB)
‘Why validation is not enough’ – plain language report for community (110 KB)
‘Why validation is not enough’ – plain language report for staff (109 KB)
‘Risk and Resilience’ – peer reviewed publi