Literature DB >> 19481846

How do prospective parents who decline prenatal screening account for their decision? A qualitative study.

Helga Gottfredsdóttir1, Kristín Björnsdóttir, Jane Sandall.   

Abstract

Despite the aim of nuchal translucency screening to enhance reproductive choices among prospective parents, research on the experience of those who choose to decline this screening has been fairly limited. The objective of this study is to gain an understanding of how parents who decline screening account for their decision in a setting where screening for Down's syndrome in early pregnancy is the norm. The majority of research on prenatal screening choices has been conducted retrospectively; there has been very little research that has explored decision making on a prospective basis and that has included both parents. In order to study this question, a purposive sample of ten couples who had decided to decline screening was recruited from four health care centres in Iceland. Data were gathered in semi-structured interviews conducted with each participant twice during the pregnancy (at 7-12 weeks pregnant and at 12-24 weeks pregnant), for a total of 40 interviews. We find that the decision to decline screening is largely determined by what prospective parents bring with them to the pregnancy, i.e., their personal philosophy of Down's syndrome and the high value they place on maintaining the complexity of life. The test is also considered unreliable by some of the participants. These findings have implications for those who are involved in formulating and providing antenatal screening policies and practices.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19481846     DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.05.004

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


  11 in total

1.  Authoritative knowledge, the technological imperative and women's responses to prenatal diagnostic technologies.

Authors:  Judith L M McCoyd
Journal:  Cult Med Psychiatry       Date:  2010-12

2.  "Don't Want No Risk and Don't Want No Problems": Public Understandings of the Risks and Benefits of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing in the United States.

Authors:  Megan Allyse; Lauren Carter Sayres; Taylor Goodspeed; Marsha Michie; Mildred K Cho
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2015

3.  Swedish University Students' Opinion Regarding Information About Soft Markers.

Authors:  Afsaneh Hayat Roshanai; Peter Lindgren; Karin Nordin; Charlotta Ingvoldstad
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-07-12       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Decision-making process of prenatal screening described by pregnant women and their partners.

Authors:  Inger Wätterbjörk; Karin Blomberg; Kerstin Nilsson; Eva Sahlberg-Blom
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-10-01       Impact factor: 3.377

5.  Why do pregnant women accept or decline prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome?

Authors:  Ellen Ternby; Ove Axelsson; Göran Annerén; Peter Lindgren; Charlotta Ingvoldstad
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2016-07-20

6.  Imagined futures: how experiential knowledge of disability affects parents' decision making about fetal abnormality.

Authors:  Emma F France; Louise Locock; Kate Hunt; Sue Ziebland; Kate Field; Sally Wyke
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2011-05-30       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  The influence of experiential knowledge and societal perceptions on decision-making regarding non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT).

Authors:  Sophie Montgomery; Zaneta M Thayer
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2020-10-19       Impact factor: 3.007

8.  Factors affecting the uptake of prenatal screening tests for congenital anomalies; a multicentre prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Janneke T Gitsels-van der Wal; Pieternel S Verhoeven; Judith Manniën; Linda Martin; Hans S Reinders; Evelien Spelten; Eileen K Hutton
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2014-08-09       Impact factor: 3.007

Review 9.  Has noninvasive prenatal testing impacted termination of pregnancy and live birth rates of infants with Down syndrome?

Authors:  Melissa Hill; Angela Barrett; Mahesh Choolani; Celine Lewis; Jane Fisher; Lyn S Chitty
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 3.050

10.  Should pregnant women be charged for non-invasive prenatal screening? Implications for reproductive autonomy and equal access.

Authors:  Robert-Jan H Galjaard; Inez D de Beaufort; Eline M Bunnik; Adriana Kater-Kuipers
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2019-09-16       Impact factor: 2.903

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.