UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS: Fetal malformations can be detected at an early stage during pregnancy by today's ultrasound technology. This study examined how pregnant women appraise the application of ultrasound technology when a fetal malformation is suspected and how this appraisal is influenced by the confirmation or rejection of the diagnosis and by the subsequent course of the pregnancy. METHOD: In a prospective study 86 pregnant women for whom a fetal malformation had been suspected in an ultrasound examination were assessed at three points in time: before the ultrasound examination at a specialized centre, one to two weeks after the examination, and four weeks after giving birth or after the premature termination of pregnancy. Assessments were conducted by means of questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: 96.4 % of pregnant women advocated routine ultrasound examinations, irrespective of whether the suspected malformation was confirmed or not and irrespective of whether the pregnancy was continued or terminated prematurely. The women rated as being most important the medical goals of the examination (e. g. determination of the child's health status) and less so the subjective and personal goals (e. g. visualization of the child). Communicative competence in the context of the examination (e. g. quality of information) were judged less favourably than technical competence (e. g. performance of the exam). 94.2 % of the women believed that the cost of the ultrasound exam should be carried by health insurances. DISCUSSION: The findings of the study show the strong significance which prenatal ultrasound examinations have for pregnant women. Acceptance of ultrasound technology is high even when the examination results cause psychological stress. However, they also indicate that more attention should be given to aspects of communication and interaction in training and application of ultrasound technology.
UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS: Fetal malformations can be detected at an early stage during pregnancy by today's ultrasound technology. This study examined how pregnant women appraise the application of ultrasound technology when a fetal malformation is suspected and how this appraisal is influenced by the confirmation or rejection of the diagnosis and by the subsequent course of the pregnancy. METHOD: In a prospective study 86 pregnant women for whom a fetal malformation had been suspected in an ultrasound examination were assessed at three points in time: before the ultrasound examination at a specialized centre, one to two weeks after the examination, and four weeks after giving birth or after the premature termination of pregnancy. Assessments were conducted by means of questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: 96.4 % of pregnant women advocated routine ultrasound examinations, irrespective of whether the suspected malformation was confirmed or not and irrespective of whether the pregnancy was continued or terminated prematurely. The women rated as being most important the medical goals of the examination (e. g. determination of the child's health status) and less so the subjective and personal goals (e. g. visualization of the child). Communicative competence in the context of the examination (e. g. quality of information) were judged less favourably than technical competence (e. g. performance of the exam). 94.2 % of the women believed that the cost of the ultrasound exam should be carried by health insurances. DISCUSSION: The findings of the study show the strong significance which prenatal ultrasound examinations have for pregnant women. Acceptance of ultrasound technology is high even when the examination results cause psychological stress. However, they also indicate that more attention should be given to aspects of communication and interaction in training and application of ultrasound technology.
Authors: Sylvie Viaux-Savelon; Marc Dommergues; Ouriel Rosenblum; Nicolas Bodeau; Elizabeth Aidane; Odile Philippon; Philippe Mazet; Claude Vibert-Guigue; Danièle Vauthier-Brouzes; Ruth Feldman; David Cohen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-01-23 Impact factor: 3.240