Literature DB >> 17260214

Informed consent: attitudes, knowledge and information concerning prenatal examinations.

Katja Dahl1, Ulrik Kesmodel, Lone Hvidman, Frede Olesen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Providing women with information enabling an informed consent to prenatal examinations has been widely recommended.
OBJECTIVE: The primary purpose of this review is to summarise the current knowledge of the pregnant woman's expectations and attitudes concerning prenatal examinations, as well as the knowledge possessed by pregnant women undergoing prenatal examinations. Second, we explore their reasons for accepting or declining available screening tests.
RESULTS: More than 90% of the pregnant women expressed a positive attitude toward screening procedures in pregnancy. Most often (70-96%), the pregnant women were found knowledgeable about the procedural and practical aspects, but were more seldom (31-81%) able to correctly identify the purpose of tracing fetal malformations. Some 29-65% were not familiar with the existence of a false negative result, and 30-43% were found unaware of the possibility of a false positive result. The risk of miscarriage in relation to amniocentetesis [AC] is unknown to 11-53%. Uptake rates are associated with attitudes toward prenatal examinations, but no knowledge of the test offered. A total of 88% considered their health care provider an important source of information, and 57% stated that this information has influenced their decision.
CONCLUSIONS: Pregnant women favor prenatal examinations, but the choice of participation does not seem to be based on insight to enable full informed consent. Health care providers are perceived as an essential source of information.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17260214     DOI: 10.1080/00016340600985164

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand        ISSN: 0001-6349            Impact factor:   3.636


  8 in total

1.  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

2.  Attitude toward Prenatal Testing and Termination of Pregnancy among Health Professionals and Medical Students in Saudi Arabia.

Authors:  Nagwa E A Gaboon; Khadijah H Bakur; Alaa Y Edrees; Jumana Y Al-Aama
Journal:  J Pediatr Genet       Date:  2017-03-16

3.  Perceptions of Latinas on the Traditional Prenatal Genetic Counseling Model.

Authors:  Stephanie Thompson; Sarah Jane Noblin; Jennifer Lemons; Susan K Peterson; Carlos Carreno; Andrea Harbison
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-12-05       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Prenatal diagnosis in low resource setting: is it acceptable?

Authors:  Hend Abdel Rahaman Shalaby; Reda Abd Elhady; Anas Mohamed Gamal; Ahmed Al Badry
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol India       Date:  2012-10-03

5.  Stress matters! Psychophysiological and emotional loadings of pregnant women undergoing fetal magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Birgit Derntl; Jacqueline Krajnik; Kathrin Kollndorfer; Manfred Bijak; Ursula Nemec; Katharina Leithner; Daniela Prayer; Veronika Schöpf
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2015-02-13       Impact factor: 3.007

6.  A routine tool with far-reaching influence: Australian midwives' views on the use of ultrasound during pregnancy.

Authors:  Kristina Edvardsson; Ingrid Mogren; Ann Lalos; Margareta Persson; Rhonda Small
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2015-08-27       Impact factor: 3.007

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.  Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy and beyond: challenges of responsible innovation in prenatal screening.

Authors:  Wybo Dondorp; Guido de Wert; Yvonne Bombard; Diana W Bianchi; Carsten Bergmann; Pascal Borry; Lyn S Chitty; Florence Fellmann; Francesca Forzano; Alison Hall; Lidewij Henneman; Heidi C Howard; Anneke Lucassen; Kelly Ormond; Borut Peterlin; Dragica Radojkovic; Wolf Rogowski; Maria Soller; Aad Tibben; Lisbeth Tranebjærg; Carla G van El; Martina C Cornel
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-03-18       Impact factor: 4.246

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.