A concept analysis of women's vulnerability during pregnancy, birth and the postnatal period

Recent research suggests that a proportion of women may develop posttraumatic stress disorder after birth. Research has not yet addressed the possibility that postpartum symptoms could be a continuation of the disorder in pregnancy. This study aimed to test the idea that some women develop posttraumatic stress disorder as a result of childbirth, and to provide an estimate of the incidence using a prospective design, which controls for the disorder in pregnancy. This prospective study assessed 289 women at three time points: 36 weeks gestation and 6 weeks and 6 months postpartum. The prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder was assessed by questionnaire at each time point, and the incidence was examined after removing women who had severe symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder or clinical depression in pregnancy. After removing women at the first time point, 2.8 percent of women fulfilled criteria for the disorder at 6 weeks postpartum and this decreased to 1.5 percent at 6 months postpartum. The results suggest that at least 1.5 percent of women may develop chronic posttraumatic stress disorder as a result of childbirth. It is important to increase awareness about the disorder and to give health professionals access to simple screening tools. Intervention is possible at several levels, but further research is needed to guide this intervention.

In this article, the traditional methods of concept development are critiqued, and alternative methods that use qualitative methods of inquiry are presented. Variations of concept development techniques appropriate to the maturity of the concept being explored are then described, including methods for concept delineation, concept comparison, concept clarification, concept correction, and concept identification. To illustrate the application of concept development methods to nursing theory, a research program to delineate the construct of comfort is described.

Our objective was to develop a framework to identify research gaps from systematic reviews. We reviewed the practices of (1) evidence-based practice centers (EPCs), and (2) other organizations that conduct evidence syntheses. We developed and pilot tested a framework for identifying research gaps. Four (33%) EPCs and three (8%) other organizations reported using an explicit framework to determine research gaps. Variations of the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcomes) framework were most common. We developed a framework incorporating both the characterization of the gap using PICOS elements (also including setting) and the identification of the reason(s) why the gap exists as (1) insufficient or imprecise information, (2) biased information, (3) inconsistency or unknown consistency, and (4) not the right information. We mapped each of these reasons to concepts from three common evidence-grading systems. Our framework determines from systematic reviews where the current evidence falls short and why or how the evidence falls short. This explicit identification of research gaps will allow systematic reviews to maximally inform the types of questions that need to be addressed and the types of studies needed to address the research gaps. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.