Special Issue on Infant Mental Health and Reproductive Health and Justice

Bibliographic Data

ID11275701
AuthorsJoanna Lauen (Irving Harris Foundation Chicago Illinois), Elizabeth Lujan (Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Department of Psychiatry University of California San Francisco California), Paula D Zeanah (0000-0002-4374-5577, Picard Center and College of Nursing University of Louisiana, Lafayette, Louisiana and Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences Tulane University School of Medicine New Orleans Louisiana, corresponding author)
Year2019
Volume40
Issue5
Pages605-607
Publication date2019-09-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueInfant Mental Health Journal (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0163-9641 • E-ISSN: 1097-0355
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1002/imhj.21800
PMID31283029
OpenAlexW2959529237
LanguageEN
References cited10

These four questions generated a diverse set of interdisciplinary papers. Articles examine current issues and their impacts on pregnant people, parents, and very young children, including incarceration, sexual coercion, obstetric violence, race and gender discrimination, political violence, and migration. Authors, which include several PDN members and colleagues within the fields of IMH, public health, pediatrics, reproductive health, immigration, and public policy, raise questions for clinical practice and research in the IMH field. This special issue opens with St. John inviting us to consider how a reproductive justice framework can transform the way the IMH field conceptualizes and works with infants and their families in “Reconceiving the Field: Infant Mental Health, Intersectionality, and Reproductive Justice.” Her article illumines the “organic synergy” between the IMH field and the reproductive justice movement and how infants and parents are better served through a collaboration between both entities (p. 6). A common theme across the issue is a need for practitioners to more fully recognize how the intersections of oppressions such as racism, classism, sexism, and xenophobia impact clinical encounters. IMH practitioners do not necessarily have the tools to address structural barriers, and thus might contribute to the perpetuation of reproductive and maternal health disparities. A key question, then, for practice is: How can clinicians better consider and address structural issues that harm families? Articles in this issue suggest that a reproductive justice lens can assist IMH practitioners in recognizing, imagining, and practicing multisystem interventions. As reproductive justice advocates have noted, we cannot understand experiences of reproduction and maternity separate from our understanding of the social context in which these occur. Grady, Hinshaw-Fuselier, and Friar (this issue) explore intergenerational transmission of trauma and the need to account for not only present circumstances and personal trauma histories but also historical trauma in “Expanding Perspectives: A Social Inequities Lens on Intimate Partner Violence, Reproductive Justice, and Infant Mental Health.” In “Look to Norway: Serving New Families and Infants in a Multiethnic Population,” Leirbakk, Magnus, Torper, and Zeanah (this issue) discuss how home visits “created a more equal power balance between the mothers and their PHNs, as compared to office visits” (p. 15). For providers, engaging with families in community settings can provide a deeper sense of families’ lived realities. In “Reflective Capacity: An Antidote to Structural Racism Cultivated Through Mental Health Consultation,” Silverman and Hutchison (this issue) propose that one way to address structural issues is through reflective practice, which cultivates self-awareness and thus an “ability to recognize, reflect, and address issues around race and reproductive oppression ... leading to deeper and more authentic relationships with patients and more possibility for advocacy ...” (p. 22). This article also highlights ways that the birth process undermines reproductive freedom and the role that IMH practitioners can play when bearing witness to mistreatment in hospital settings. Augustyn's (this issue) review of the book Birthing Justice: Black Women, Pregnancy, and Childbirth further explores this through addressing the “medical violence” experienced by Black people during pregnancy, labor, and childbirth and the complexity of creating solutions. Articles in this issue also suggest increased awareness, as practitioners alone are not sufficient to address these challenges. To create lasting structural change, IMH professionals will need to join collective action. In “Reproductive Justice for Incarcerated Women and Advocacy for Their Infants and Young Children,” Shlafer and Carlson (this issue) urge professionals to work together across disciplines “to advocate for policies, practices, and resources that promote reproductive health of incarcerated mothers and healthy developmental trajectories of young children” (p. 33). As reproductive justice sharpens the focus on how multiple contexts and systems impact the practice of IMH, it should also inform new theoretical perspectives, content, and methods for research. St. John (this issue) argues that an intersectionality framework can lead to better understanding of the “unintended by-products, implicit biases, systemic exclusions, and harmful repetitions of structural inequities in research, writing, and practice” (p. 31). Lierrbak et al. (this issue) use salutogenic theory to promote partnerships in healthcare systems that develop relationship-based maternal child healthcare delivery systems that serve diverse groups of immigrant families in Norway with equity and justice. Research can elucidate how best to support clinicians working with families who experience discrimination and disadvantage, and how interdisciplinary perspectives may provide opportunities to examine the bidirectional growth of professionals (Silverman & Hutchison, this issue). In supporting parents and families, the articles “Reproductive Justice and Support for Young Fathers” by Dukes, Palm, and Carlson (this issue); “Teenage Childbearing, Reproductive Justice, and Infant Mental Health” by Hans and White (this issue); and “Long-Acting Reversible Contraception: A Route to Reproductive Justice or Injustice” by Kaitz, Mankuta, and Mankuta (this issue), along with articles by Grady et al. (this issue) and Schlafer and Carlson (this issue), describe how social contexts and policy impact services. They emphasize the need to center the experiences and wisdom of communities left out of social service and public health decisions that directly affect them. Grady et al. provide a clear example of how historical injustices may influence current experiences, and the global perspectives of Lierbakk et al. (this issue) and Fortuna et al.’s (this issue) article “Trauma, Immigration, and Sexual Health Among Latina Women: Implications for Maternal–Child Well-Being and Reproductive Justice” underscore the importance of recognizing the diverse experiences and needs of immigrants. These articles demonstrate how infant mental health issues considered within the contexts of reproductive justice require a broadening of the usual scope of practice and systematic assessment and intervention approaches that are sensitive, appropriate, and acceptable to those served. These challenges also underscore the variety of research methodologies needed to elucidate the complex interpersonal and systemic challenges that come when reproductive justice issues present in clinical work. Case studies, a traditional approach in clinical IMH, serve to increase awareness and can lead to systematic approaches to identify and address injustice. Cross-cultural comparative studies, such as that of Fortuna et al., provide direction for developing services that are salient and meaningful to users. Program-evaluation studies, such as those being developed by Lierbakk et al. (this issue), hold the promise of evaluating the impact of services on mothers, families, and children whose health may be affected by trauma and reproductive injustices. Perhaps most striking throughout the articles is the call to include those with lived experiences and those most affected by injustice, to be involved in research and program development (Lierbakk et al, this issue; St. John, this issue). As such, research models that account for historical trauma and participatory research models will extend our understanding and improve our practice (St. John, this issue; Lierbakk et al., this issue). Through this special issue, we hope that we have helped to address the myriad ways reproductive injustices show up within the IMH field. We recognize that some papers have surfaced more questions related to clinical practice, training, and research than with which we began. We hope this special edition will serve to open a robust and ongoing conversation about the critical role that we in the IMH field can play in helping to achieve a world where all families and parents can raise their infants and toddlers in dignity, health, and safety. We are grateful for the contributions and diligence of many, including the authors and peer reviewers, key IHF staff members Gregory Tate and Amanda Hwu, and those who conceptualized this project: Nancy Close, Dorothy Henderson, Joaniko Kohchi, David Mankuta, Kandace Thomas, and Barbara White. The authors have no conflict of interest

Criminology · Domestic violence · Economic Justice · Environmental health · Harm · Mental health · Poison control · Political science · Population · Psychiatry · Psychological intervention · Public health · Reproductive health · Reproductive justice · Sociology · Suicide prevention · Family Dynamics and Relationships · Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health · Homicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse · Law · Medicine · Nursing · Psychology · Social Psychology