No abstract

BackgroundApproaches to screening can influence the acceptance of and comfort with mental health screening. Qualitative evidence on pregnant women’s comfort with different screening approaches and disclosure of mental health concerns is scant. The purpose of this study was to understand women’s perspectives of different mental health screening approaches and the perceived barriers to the communication and disclosure of their mental health concerns during pregnancy.MethodsA qualitative descriptive study was undertaken. Fifteen women, with a singleton pregnancy, were recruited from a community maternity clinic and a mental health clinic in Calgary, Canada. Semi-structured interviews were conducted during both the 2nd and 3rd trimesters. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.ResultsPreferences for mental health screening approaches varied. Most women with a known mental health issue preferred a communicative approach, while women without a known mental health history who struggled with emotional problems were inclined towards less interactive approaches and reported a reluctance to share their concerns. Barriers to communicating mental health concerns included a lack of emotional literacy (i.e., not recognizing the symptoms, not understanding the emotions), fear of disclosure outcomes (i.e., fear of being judged, fear of the consequences), feeling uncomfortable to be seen vulnerable, perception about the role of prenatal care provider (internal barriers); the lack of continuity of care, depersonalized care, lack of feedback, and unfamiliarity with/uncertainty about the availability of support (structural barriers).ConclusionsThe overlaps between some themes identified for the reasons behind a preferred screening approach and barriers reported by women to communicate mental health concerns suggest that having options may help women overcome some of the current disclosure barriers and enable them to engage in the process. Furthermore, the continuity of care, clarity around the outcomes of disclosing mental health concerns, and availability of immediate support can help women move from providing “the best answer” to providing an authentic answer.

This paper examines the critical issue of public confidence in sentencing, and presents findings from Phase I of an Australia-wide sentencing and public confidence project. Phase I comprised a nationally representative telephone survey of 6005 participants. The majority of respondents expressed high levels of punitiveness and were dissatisfied with sentences imposed by the courts. Despite this, many were strongly supportive of the use of alternatives to imprisonment for a range of offences. These nuanced views raise questions regarding the efficacy of gauging public opinion using opinion poll style questions; indeed the expected outcome from this first phase of the four phase sentencing and public confidence project. The following phases of this project, reported on elsewhere, examined the effects of various interventions on the robustness and nature of these views initially expressed in a standard ‘top of the head’ opinion poll.

In this article, we start from internationally developed models explaining growing punitiveness and increasing imprisonment rates, to analyse the penal situation within Australia. While the eight Australian jurisdictions share many of the characteristics that have been identified as being important determinants of the size of the prison population, local features of these societies result in significant differences in punishment. The aim of the article is to describe the main drivers of penal policy in four Australian states (New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia). Specific attention will be paid to the situation of Indigenous peoples and the impact of the country's colonial history. It will be argued that the explanatory models can explain the trend in the Australian imprisonment rates, but not the different levels between these rates.

Preferences of 800 randomly selected Australians for retributive and utilitarian sentencing purposes were examined in response to brief crime scenarios where offender age, offence type and offender history were systematically varied. Respondents selected rehabilitation as the most