Literature DB >> 19783085

A meta-synthesis of pregnant women's decision-making processes with regard to antenatal screening for Down syndrome.

Bernie Reid1, Marlene Sinclair, Owen Barr, Frank Dobbs, Grainne Crealey.   

Abstract

The diffusion of antenatal screening programmes for Down syndrome has triggered much discussion about their powerful potential to enhance pregnant women's autonomy and reproductive choices. Simultaneously, considerable debate has been engendered by concerns that such programmes may directly contribute to the emergence of new and complex ethical, legal and social dilemmas for women. Given such discussion and debate, an examination of women's decision-making within the context of antenatal screening for Down syndrome is timely. This paper aims to undertake a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies examining the factors influencing pregnant women's decisions to accept or decline antenatal screening for Down syndrome. The meta-synthesis aims to create more comprehensive understandings and to develop theory which might enable midwives and other healthcare professionals to better meet the needs of pregnant women as they make their screening decisions. Ten electronic health and social science databases were searched together with a hand-search of eleven journals for papers published in English between 1999 and 2008, using predefined search terms, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a quality appraisal framework. Nine papers met the criteria for this meta-synthesis, providing an international perspective on pregnant women's decision-making. Twelve themes were identified by consensus and combined into five core concepts. These core concepts were: destination unknown; to choose or not to choose; risk is rarely pure and never simple; treading on dreams, and betwixt and between. A conceptual framework is proposed which incorporates these themes and core concepts, and provides a new insight into pregnant women's complex decision-making processes with regard to antenatal screening for Down syndrome. However, further research is necessary to determine whether or not the development of a model of decision-making may empower pregnant women in making choices about screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19783085     DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.09.006

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


  14 in total

1.  Prenatal genetic testing: an investigation of determining factors affecting the decision-making process.

Authors:  Monica Pivetti; Giannino Melotti
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-04-03       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  "This lifetime commitment": Public conceptions of disability and noninvasive prenatal genetic screening.

Authors:  Rosemary J Steinbach; Megan Allyse; Marsha Michie; Emily Y Liu; Mildred K Cho
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2015-11-14       Impact factor: 2.802

3.  Exploring qualitative research synthesis: the role of patients' perspectives in health policy design and decision making.

Authors:  Helle Ploug Hansen; Eva Draborg; Finn Børlum Kristensen
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  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

5.  Maternal bodies and medicines: a commentary on risk and decision-making of pregnant and breastfeeding women and health professionals.

Authors:  Karalyn McDonald; Lisa H Amir; Mary-Ann Davey
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2011-11-25       Impact factor: 3.295

6.  How do informal information sources influence women's decision-making for birth? A meta-synthesis of qualitative studies.

Authors:  Ruth A Sanders; Kenda Crozier
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2018-01-10       Impact factor: 3.007

7.  A Framework for Describing the Influence of Service Organisation and Delivery on Participation in Fetal Anomaly Screening in England.

Authors:  Hyacinth O Ukuhor; Janet Hirst; S José Closs; William J Montelpare
Journal:  J Pregnancy       Date:  2017-03-22

8.  Offering prenatal diagnostic tests: European guidelines for clinical practice [corrected].

Authors:  Heather Skirton; Lesley Goldsmith; Leigh Jackson; Celine Lewis; Lyn Chitty
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-09-11       Impact factor: 4.246

9.  Women's experience of transfer from midwifery unit to hospital obstetric unit during labour: a qualitative interview study.

Authors:  Rachel E Rowe; Jennifer J Kurinczuk; Louise Locock; Ray Fitzpatrick
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2012-11-15       Impact factor: 3.007

10.  Diagnosis of a severe congenital anomaly: A qualitative analysis of parental decision making and the implications for healthcare encounters.

Authors:  Robyn Lotto; Lucy K Smith; Natalie Armstrong
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2018-02-02       Impact factor: 3.377

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.