Perinatal mental health service provision in Switzerland and in the UK.

QUESTIONS UNDER STUDY The epidemiology of maternal perinatal-psychiatric disorders as well as their effect on the baby is well recognised. Increasingly well researched specialised treatment methods can reduce maternal morbidity, positively affect mother-baby bonding and empower women's confidence as a mother. Here, we aimed to compare guidelines and the structure of perinatal-psychiatric service delivery in the United Kingdom and in Switzerland from the government's perspective. METHODS Swiss cantons provided information regarding guidelines and structure of service delivery in 2000. A subsequent survey using the same questionnaire was carried out in 2007. In the UK, similar information was accessed through published reports from 2000-2012. RESULTS Guidelines for perinatal psychiatry exist in the UK, whereas in Switzerland in 2000 none of the 26 cantons had guidelines, and in 2007 only one canton did. Joint mother-baby admissions on general psychiatric wards were offered by 92% of the Swiss cantons. In the UK, pregnant women and joint mother-baby admissions are only advised onto specialised perinatal-psychiatric units. In Switzerland, in 2007, three specialised units (max. 24 beds) were in place corresponding to 1 unit per 2.5 million people, while in the UK there were 22 mother-baby units (168 beds) in 2012 (1 unit per 2.8 million). In the UK, less than 50% of trusts provided specialised perinatal-psychiatric health care. CONCLUSIONS The main difference between the UK and Switzerland was the absence of guidelines, regular assessment and plans for future development of perinatal psychiatry in Switzerland. There are still geographical differences in the provision of perinatal-psychiatric services in the UK.

Reporting and handling missing outcome data in mental health: a systematic review of Cochrane systematic reviews and meta-analyses

OBJECTIVES The purpose of the study was to provide empirical evidence about the reporting of methodology to address missing outcome data and the acknowledgement of their impact in Cochrane systematic reviews in the mental health field. METHODS Systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews after January 1, 2009 by three Cochrane Review Groups relating to mental health were included. RESULTS One hundred ninety systematic reviews were considered. Missing outcome data were present in at least one included study in 175 systematic reviews. Of these 175 systematic reviews, 147 (84%) accounted for missing outcome data by considering a relevant primary or secondary outcome (e.g., dropout). Missing outcome data implications were reported only in 61 (35%) systematic reviews and primarily in the discussion section by commenting on the amount of the missing outcome data. One hundred forty eligible meta-analyses with missing data were scrutinized. Seventy-nine (56%) of them had studies with total dropout rate between 10 and 30%. One hundred nine (78%) meta-analyses reported to have performed intention-to-treat analysis by including trials with imputed outcome data. Sensitivity analysis for incomplete outcome data was implemented in less than 20% of the meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS Reporting of the techniques for handling missing outcome data and their implications in the findings of the systematic reviews are suboptimal.