Literature DB >> 12795303

Women's knowledge of prenatal ultrasound and informed choice.

Ruth J Kohut1, Deborah Dewey, Edgar J Love.   

Abstract

This study evaluated women's understanding of prenatal ultrasound in terms of meeting the requirements for informed choice. A cross-sectional survey was conducted to evaluate (1) how information is provided, (2) women's perceived value of the information received and, (3) their understanding of ultrasound in relation to the principles of informed choice. Women (n=113) completed a questionnaire prior to their 18-week ultrasound. Fifty-five percent stated they received no information from their care provider. Only 31.9% considered health care providers as a "very helpful" source of information. Yet, 69.0% stated their care provider gave them information that facilitated their understanding. Gaps were identified in women's understanding of ultrasound. Specifically, 46.0% did not view ultrasound as a screen for anomalies; some were uncertain about their safety (18.6%), diagnostic capabilities (26.5%), and limitations of testing (37.2%). These results suggest that women's understanding of ultrasound does not meet the requirements of informed choice.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Genetics and Reproduction; Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12795303     DOI: 10.1023/a:1016378415514

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Genet Couns        ISSN: 1059-7700            Impact factor:   2.537


  12 in total

1.  Is "informed right of refusal" the same as "informed consent"?

Authors:  R D Truog
Journal:  J Clin Ethics       Date:  1996

Review 2.  Towards informed decisions about prenatal testing: a review.

Authors:  T M Marteau
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 3.050

3.  Commentary: evidence based information for women is important.

Authors:  M Newburn; M Gready
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-11-16

4.  Prenatal informed consent for sonogram: an indication for obstetric ultrasonography.

Authors:  F A Chervenak; L B McCullough; J L Chervenak
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1989-10       Impact factor: 8.661

5.  Informed choice in prenatal screening.

Authors:  A M Summers
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 3.275

6.  Ontario Maternal Serum Screening Program: practices, knowledge and opinions of health care providers.

Authors:  J C Carroll; A J Reid; C A Woodward; J A Permaul-Woods; S Domb; G Ryan; S Arbitman; B Fallis; J Kilthei
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1997-03-15       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 7.  Bioethics for clinicians: 1. Consent.

Authors:  E Etchells; G Sharpe; P Walsh; J R Williams; P A Singer
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1996-07-15       Impact factor: 8.262

8.  Presenting a routine screening test in antenatal care: practice observed.

Authors:  T M Marteau; J Slack; J Kidd; R W Shaw
Journal:  Public Health       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 2.427

9.  Effectiveness of routine ultrasonography in detecting fetal structural abnormalities in a low risk population.

Authors:  L S Chitty; G H Hunt; J Moore; M O Lobb
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1991-11-09

10.  Prenatal diagnosis of congenital anomalies.

Authors:  T Todros; E Capuzzo; P Gaglioti
Journal:  Images Paediatr Cardiol       Date:  2001-04
View more
  10 in total

Review 1.  Measuring informed choice in population-based reproductive genetic screening: a systematic review.

Authors:  Alice Grace Ames; Sylvia Ann Metcalfe; Alison Dalton Archibald; Rony Emily Duncan; Jon Emery
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-05-21       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  Informed Decision-Making in the Context of Prenatal Chromosomal Microarray.

Authors:  Jessica Baker; Cheryl Shuman; David Chitayat; Syed Wasim; Nan Okun; Johannes Keunen; Renee Hofstedter; Rachel Silver
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Patient understanding of diagnostic ultrasound examinations in an Australian private radiology clinic.

Authors:  Amy Starcevich; Paul Lombardo; Michal Schneider
Journal:  Australas J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2020-11-29

4.  A randomized trial of a prenatal genetic testing interactive computerized information aid.

Authors:  Lynn M Yee; Michael Wolf; Rebecca Mullen; Ashley R Bergeron; Stacy Cooper Bailey; Robert Levine; William A Grobman
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2014-03-18       Impact factor: 3.050

5.  Adjunct prenatal testing: patient decisions regarding ethnic carrier screening and fluorescence in situ hybridization.

Authors:  Erica L Sturm; Kelly E Ormond
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  NIPT and Informed Consent: an Assessment of Patient Understanding of a Negative NIPT Result.

Authors:  Julie L Piechan; Karrie A Hines; Daniel L Koller; Kristyne Stone; Kimberly Quaid; Wilfredo Torres-Martinez; Divya Wilson Mathews; Tatiana Foroud; Lola Cook
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-04-01       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  'Ultrasound is an invaluable third eye, but it can't see everything': a qualitative study with obstetricians in Australia.

Authors:  Kristina Edvardsson; Rhonda Small; Margareta Persson; Ann Lalos; Ingrid Mogren
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2014-10-22       Impact factor: 3.007

8.  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

Review 9.  Factors Affecting Improved Prenatal Screening: A Narrative Review.

Authors:  Zohreh Shahhosseini; Hoda Arabi; Azam Salehi; Zeinab Hamzehgardeshi
Journal:  Glob J Health Sci       Date:  2015-09-28

10.  Does a web-based decision aid improve informed choice for fertility preservation in women with breast cancer (DECISIF)? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Alexandra Benoit; Michael Grynberg; Rémy Morello; Nathalie Sermondade; Guillaume Grandazzi; Grégoire Moutel
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-02-10       Impact factor: 2.692

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.