Literature DB >> 16289787

On being at higher risk: a qualitative study of prenatal screening for chromosomal anomalies.

Bob Heyman1, Gillian Hundt, Jane Sandall, Kevin Spencer, Clare Williams, Rachel Grellier, Laura Pitson.   

Abstract

This paper explores the meaning of higher risk status to women undergoing prenatal maternal screening for chromosomal anomalies. Quotations from lightly structured interviews and transcripts of pre-screening consultations in suburban London are used to illustrate pregnant women's diverse responses to the offer of screening, and to entering, living with and exiting from higher risk status. Some women reject screening in order to avoid the psychosocial and medical risks associated with higher risk status, or because they rule out pregnancy termination. They may question the risk selection implicitly built into the provision of preventative systems for some health problems but not others. Women who screen at higher risk may challenge this designation by questioning the system-specific probability used to separate them from the lower risk population. However, some experience distress even when they appreciate the precautionary basis on which their higher risk designation is based. They may find disengagement from higher risk status difficult after a diagnostic test has ruled out chromosomal anomalies. The findings highlight the complexity of communicating risk information to pregnant women and other screened populations, and emphasise the need to support those living with higher risk status and the benefits of keeping the time lived with this status as short as possible.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16289787     DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.10.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  8 in total

1.  Inside 'Inside View': reflections on stimulating debate and engagement through a multimedia live theatre production on the dilemmas and issues of pre-natal screening policy and practice.

Authors:  Gillian Lewando Hundt; Claudette Bryanston; Pam Lowe; Saul Cross; Jane Sandall; Kevin Spencer
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  Negotiating desires and options: how mothers who carry the fragile X gene experience reproductive decisions.

Authors:  Kelly Amanda Raspberry; Debra Skinner
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2011-02-03       Impact factor: 4.634

3.  Non-invasive prenatal testing for single gene disorders: exploring the ethics.

Authors:  Zuzana Deans; Melissa Hill; Lyn S Chitty; Celine Lewis
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-11-28       Impact factor: 4.246

4.  Socioeconomic inequalities in pregnancy outcome associated with Down syndrome: a population-based study.

Authors:  Judith L S Budd; Elizabeth S Draper; Robyn R Lotto; Laura E Berry; Lucy K Smith
Journal:  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed       Date:  2015-06-12       Impact factor: 5.747

5.  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

6.  Experiences and expectations in the first trimester of pregnancy: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Stina Lou; Michal Frumer; Mette M Schlütter; Olav B Petersen; Ida Vogel; Camilla P Nielsen
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2017-05-18       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  Danish Sonographers' Experiences of the Introduction of "Moderate Risk" in Prenatal Screening for Down Syndrome.

Authors:  Anne Møller; Ida Vogel; Olav Bjørn Petersen; Stina Lou
Journal:  J Pregnancy       Date:  2018-10-09

8.  The decision: Relations to oneself, authority and vulnerability in the field of selective abortion.

Authors:  Sølvi Marie Risøy; Thorvald Sirnes
Journal:  Biosocieties       Date:  2015-09
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.