Literature DB >> 16499533

Pregnant women's responses to information about an increased risk of carrying a baby with Down syndrome.

Georgsson Ohman Susanne1, Saltvedt Sissel, Waldenström Ulla, Grunewald Charlotta, Olin-Lauritzen Sonja.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Fetal screening for Down syndrome by an ultrasound examination, including measurement of fetal nuchal translucency, at 12 to14 weeks' gestation is presently being evaluated in a Swedish randomized controlled trial. Women at high risk were offered an amniocentesis to obtain a definite diagnosis. The aim of this study was to explore women's reactions and responses to information about being at high risk after the scan, with a special focus on reactions to a false positive test.
METHOD: Interviews were conducted with 24 women within 1 week after the scan, in midpregnancy, and 2 months after the birth. The interviews were analyzed qualitatively. Down syndrome was confirmed in 4 women, who chose to terminate the pregnancy. The remaining 20 women had a false positive test.
RESULTS: For the majority, the risk information caused strong reactions of anxiety and worries about the future. A typical way for women to cope was to "withhold" the pregnancy, to take a "timeout," and try to live as if they were not pregnant any longer. Some weeks later, when the women received normal results from the chromosome analysis, they resumed being pregnant. Six women ages more than 35 years who had a risk score lower than their age-related risk did not express similarly strong reactions. Two months after the birth of a healthy baby, most stated they would undergo the same procedure in a subsequent pregnancy. One woman still suffered from the experience when interviewed at 2 months after the birth, and another said she regretted participating in the fetal screening program.
CONCLUSIONS: A false positive test of fetal screening for Down syndrome by ultrasound examination may cause strong reactions of anxiety and even rejection of the pregnancy. The prevalence of such reactions and possible long-term effects need further investigation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16499533     DOI: 10.1111/j.0730-7659.2006.00075.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Birth        ISSN: 0730-7659            Impact factor:   3.689


  10 in total

1.  Exploring adoption with clients: the need for adoption education within the genetic counseling profession.

Authors:  Cassandra L Perry; Martha J Henry
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2010-03-16       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Prenatal testing for Down syndrome: comparison of screening practices in the UK and USA.

Authors:  Dagmar Tapon
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2009-11-03       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Referral for fetal echocardiography is associated with increased maternal anxiety.

Authors:  Katherine B Rosenberg; Catherine Monk; Julie S Glickstein; Stephanie M Levasseur; Lynn L Simpson; Charles S Kleinman; Ismee A Williams
Journal:  J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 2.949

4.  What women want: lead considerations for current and future applications of noninvasive prenatal testing in prenatal care.

Authors:  Ruth M Farrell; Patricia K Agatisa; Benjamin Nutter
Journal:  Birth       Date:  2014-05-14       Impact factor: 3.689

5.  Clinical utility of noninvasive fetal trisomy (NIFTY) test--early experience.

Authors:  Tze Kin Lau; Mei Ki Chan; Pui Shan Salome Lo; Hon Yee Connie Chan; Wai Sze Kim Chan; Tik Yee Koo; Hoi Yan Joyce Ng; Ritsuko K Pooh
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2012-04-28

6.  Information following a diagnosis of congenital heart defect: experiences among parents to prenatally diagnosed children.

Authors:  Tommy Carlsson; Gunnar Bergman; Ulla Melander Marttala; Barbro Wadensten; Elisabet Mattsson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-02-18       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Coping with worry while waiting for diagnostic results: a qualitative study of the experiences of pregnant couples following a high-risk prenatal screening result.

Authors:  Stina Lou; Camilla P Nielsen; Lone Hvidman; Olav B Petersen; Mette B Risør
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2016-10-21       Impact factor: 3.007

8.  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

9.  Women's Experiences and Preferences for Service Delivery of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Aneuploidy in a Public Health Setting: A Mixed Methods Study.

Authors:  Celine Lewis; Melissa Hill; Lyn S Chitty
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-04-05       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Psychosocial Factors of Health Professionals' Intention to Use a Decision Aid for Down Syndrome Screening: Cross-Sectional Quantitative Study.

Authors:  Samira Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi; Johanie Lépine; Jordie Croteau; Hubert Robitaille; Anik Mc Giguere; Brenda J Wilson; François Rousseau; Isabelle Lévesque; France Légaré
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2018-04-25       Impact factor: 5.428

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.