Literature DB >> 16768735

Fetal anomaly screening: what do women want to know?

Joan Lalor1, Cecily Begley.   

Abstract

AIM: This paper reports a study exploring women's experiences of receiving an adverse diagnosis at a routine second trimester ultrasound examination, and the factors that influenced their preparedness for an adverse finding.
BACKGROUND: Ultrasound has become a routine part of prenatal care offered to pregnant women in most developed countries and technological advances are making it increasingly possible to detect more anomalies, and at earlier gestations. When fetal anomaly detection can be an outcome of the examination, provision of effective information to ensure informed consent for screening remains a challenge.
METHOD: A grounded theory study (n = 38) was carried out in 2004 and 2005 using an in-depth interview within 4 weeks of diagnosis and constant comparative analysis.
FINDINGS: The core category of balancing information emerged, whereby women balanced the expectation of a healthy baby and the non-threatening nature of the ultrasound examination with the shock of an adverse diagnosis. Assumed fetal health was contributed to by being in good health, experiencing normal symptoms of pregnancy and having other healthy children. The majority of women believed that provision of extensive and detailed lists regarding fetal anomaly detection would only cause unnecessary anxiety and worry, and suggested that a less detailed approach is required for a routine screening programme for low-risk pregnancy.
CONCLUSION: The drive to inform all women fully of ultrasound detection rates for specific anomalies may be counter-productive as it will enhance the worry pregnant women already feel in relation to the health of their unborn baby.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16768735     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03884.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Adv Nurs        ISSN: 0309-2402            Impact factor:   3.187


  10 in total

1.  Non-invasive prenatal testing: ethical issues explored.

Authors:  Antina de Jong; Wybo J Dondorp; Christine E M de Die-Smulders; Suzanne G M Frints; Guido M W R de Wert
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2009-12-02       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 2.  Health-care provider communication with expectant parents during a prenatal diagnosis: an integrative review.

Authors:  A L Kratovil; W A Julion
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2016-08-11       Impact factor: 2.521

Review 3.  High feedback versus low feedback of prenatal ultrasound for reducing maternal anxiety and improving maternal health behaviour in pregnancy.

Authors:  Ashraf F Nabhan; Nasreen Aflaifel
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-08-04

4.  Breaking bad and difficult news in obstetric ultrasound and sonographer burnout: Is training helpful?

Authors:  Judith Johnson; Jane Arezina; Alison McGuinness; Anne-Marie Culpan; Louise Hall
Journal:  Ultrasound       Date:  2018-12-12

5.  Ultrasound's 'window on the womb' brings ethical challenges for balancing maternal and fetal health interests: obstetricians' experiences in Australia.

Authors:  Kristina Edvardsson; Rhonda Small; Ann Lalos; Margareta Persson; Ingrid Mogren
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2015-05-08       Impact factor: 2.652

6.  '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

7.  Parents' Experiences With Ultrasound During Pregnancy With a Lethal Fetal Diagnosis.

Authors:  Erin M Denney-Koelsch; Denise Côté-Arsenault; Erin Lemcke-Berno
Journal:  Glob Qual Nurs Res       Date:  2015-06-01

8.  A systematic review regarding women's emotional and psychological experiences of high-risk pregnancies.

Authors:  Nazeema Zainura Isaacs; Michelle Glenda Andipatin
Journal:  BMC Psychol       Date:  2020-05-03

9.  Clients' reasons for prenatal ultrasonography in Ibadan, South West of Nigeria.

Authors:  Christopher A Enakpene; Imran O Morhason-Bello; Anthony O Marinho; Babatunde O Adedokun; Adegoke O Kalejaiye; Kayode Sogo; Sikiru A Gbadamosi; Babatunde S Awoyinka; Obehi O Enabor
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2009-05-09       Impact factor: 2.809

10.  A qualitative study of the work experiences of midwives performing obstetric ultrasound in Norway.

Authors:  Magnhild Reiso; Berit Langli; Eva Sommerseth; Aud Johannessen
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2020-10-21       Impact factor: 3.007

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.