Abstract Background Perinatal mental health (PMH) problems are common, in particular among perinatal women from migrant backgrounds. Despite global recommendations for universal screening, implementation remains inconsistent and inequitable. To better understand these inequities, this study aimed to explore healthcare providers’ experiences and needs regarding screening and referral for perinatal depression and anxiety among women from migrant backgrounds in Flanders, Belgium. Methods A qualitative study design was employed, conducting focus groups with primary care and community-based healthcare providers. Participants were recruited through a purposive sampling strategy using newsletters, social media, and email. Discussions were recorded, verbatim transcribed, and analysed using inductive framework analysis. To ensure credibility, a member check survey was conducted. Results Based on the analysis of five heterogeneous focus groups ( n = 20 in total), four themes and seven subthemes were identified: (1) complexity of interactions between healthcare providers and migrant women: underscoring (a) the impact of cultural and language barriers and (b) the importance of a trusting relationship; (2) screening in its context: highlighting (c) the ambivalence around screening and (d) the impact of organisational and financial factors on implementation; (3) accessible referral: stressing (e) the importance of person-centred, culturally and linguistically appropriate services; and (4) PMH in its proper context: addressing (f) the role of stigma, taboo, PMH literacy, and understanding, and (g) the involvement of women’s partner, family and broader network. Conclusions These findings underscore the complexity of screening and referral practices among all (expectant) mothers, particularly among women from migrant communities, and simultaneously offer a foundation to develop and implement screening and referral protocols. Ideally, these protocols should be co-designed with perinatal service users to ensure equitable practices for all.
Puttemans et al. (Wed,) studied this question.