Literature DB >> 10701846

Survey of attitudes of pregnant women towards Down syndrome screening.

L N Al-Jader1, N Parry-Langdon, R J Smith.   

Abstract

This study aimed to examine whether pregnant women made informed decisions based on an accurate understanding of the antenatal screening process and to explore their attitude to screening and termination of a Down syndrome fetus. Women's aspirations were the keystone that informed the development of the first strategy for antenatal screening for congenital anomalies. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with a sample of pregnant women in South Wales in 1995. A total of 34 women aged less than 35 years, who were 20 weeks pregnant, were interviewed. These women were selected because the screening policy differed between hospitals for this age group. The majority of women were not aware that screening tests were voluntary: tests were presented as routine. About half of the sample were not well informed to make decisions. Only five out of a sampling frame of 101 women refused screening; they tended to be better educated and of higher social class. All women wanted to be given the choice whether to be screened. Seven out of 34 would not terminate an affected fetus. Staff communication skills, especially in delivering risk estimate, were criticized. The survey findings supported the view that women required an information package tailored to their individual needs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10701846     DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0223(200001)20:1<23::aid-pd746>3.0.co;2-t

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prenat Diagn        ISSN: 0197-3851            Impact factor:   3.050


  10 in total

Review 1.  The potential contribution of decision aids to screening programmes.

Authors:  V Entwistle
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  "Testing times, challenging choices": an Australian study of prenatal genetic counseling.

Authors:  Jan M Hodgson; Lynn H Gillam; Margaret A Sahhar; Sylvia A Metcalfe
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2009-10-02       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 3.  Improving communication between health professionals and women in maternity care: a structured review.

Authors:  Rachel E Rowe; Jo Garcia; Alison J Macfarlane; Leslie L Davidson
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.377

4.  Pregnant Genetic Counselors in an Era of Advanced Genomic Tests: What Do the Experts Test Prenatally?

Authors:  Shiri Shkedi-Rafid; Yael Hashiloni-Dolev
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2018-03-03       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 5.  A systematic review of decision support needs of parents making child health decisions.

Authors:  Cath Jackson; Francine M Cheater; Innes Reid
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 3.377

6.  Exploring informed choice in the context of prenatal testing: findings from a qualitative study.

Authors:  Beth K Potter; Natasha O'Reilly; Holly Etchegary; Heather Howley; Ian D Graham; Mark Walker; Doug Coyle; Yelena Chorny; Mario Cappelli; Isabelle Boland; Brenda J Wilson
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2008-09-16       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  Prenatal diagnosis in low resource setting: is it acceptable?

Authors:  Hend Abdel Rahaman Shalaby; Reda Abd Elhady; Anas Mohamed Gamal; Ahmed Al Badry
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol India       Date:  2012-10-03

8.  Clinicians' perspectives of parental decision-making following diagnosis of a severe congenital anomaly: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Robyn Lotto; Lucy K Smith; Natalie Armstrong
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-06-06       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Decision-making on terminating pregnancy for Muslim Arab women pregnant with fetuses with congenital anomalies: maternal affect and doctor-patient communication.

Authors:  Anat Gesser-Edelsburg; Nour Abed Elhadi Shahbari
Journal:  Reprod Health       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 3.223

10.  Exploring general practitioners' experience of informing women about prenatal screening tests for foetal abnormalities: a qualitative focus group study.

Authors:  Cate Nagle; Sharon Lewis; Bettina Meiser; Jane Gunn; Jane Halliday; Robin Bell
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2008-05-28       Impact factor: 2.655

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.