Literature DB >> 20083367

Did I really want to know this? Pregnant women's reaction to detection of a soft marker during ultrasound screening.

Annika Ahman1, Karin Runestam, Anna Sarkadi.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate women's expectations of routine ultrasound and experiences when soft markers were discovered: what the disclosure meant, how it affected them, how they experienced the information given and why they did or did not choose amniocentesis.
DESIGN: Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with 11 women 25-30 weeks into the pregnancy, 7-13 weeks after the discovery of a soft marker.
FINDINGS: Women lacked knowledge about the potential of the scan and detection of soft markers created strong emotional reactions that women thought could have been alleviated by prior information about potential findings. Information in connection with the scan was perceived as insufficient. Decision about amniocentesis was affected by attitudes to disability, anxiety about fetal loss due to the procedure, need for certainty by a diagnostic test, and partner's opinion.
CONCLUSIONS: Women were shocked by the unexpected and sometimes unwanted information on elevated risk for a chromosomal aberration for which they lacked any preparation. Because this event often has long-lasting effects on the pregnancy, models of information that are efficient in promoting informed decisions are imperative. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Both women and their partners need relevant information before and in connection with ultrasound scan to be able to make informed choices. (c) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20083367     DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.12.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Patient Educ Couns        ISSN: 0738-3991


  18 in total

1.  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

2.  Impact of Genomic Counseling on Informed Decision-Making among ostensibly Healthy Individuals Seeking Personal Genome Sequencing: the HealthSeq Project.

Authors:  Sabrina A Suckiel; Michael D Linderman; Saskia C Sanderson; George A Diaz; Melissa Wasserstein; Andrew Kasarskis; Eric E Schadt; Randi E Zinberg
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-02-22       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Isolated 'soft signs' of fetal choroid plexus cysts or echogenic intracardiac focus - consequences of their continued reporting.

Authors:  Grace Prentice; Alec Welsh; Amy Howat; Dominic Ross; Amanda Henry
Journal:  Australas J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2019-10-11

4.  Indeterminate Prenatal Ultrasounds and Maternal Anxiety: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Marielle S Gross; Hyeyoung Ju; Lauren M Osborne; Eric B Jelin; Priya Sekar; Angie C Jelin
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2021-01-03

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.  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.  When fetal hydronephrosis is suspected antenatally--a qualitative study.

Authors:  Marie Oscarsson; Tomas Gottvall; Katarina Swahnberg
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2015-12-22       Impact factor: 3.007

Review 9.  Social and behavioral research in genomic sequencing: approaches from the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium Outcomes and Measures Working Group.

Authors:  Stacy W Gray; Yolanda Martins; Lindsay Z Feuerman; Barbara A Bernhardt; Barbara B Biesecker; Kurt D Christensen; Steven Joffe; Christine Rini; David Veenstra; Amy L McGuire
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2014-03-13       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  'It made you think twice' - an interview study of women's perception of a web-based decision aid concerning screening and diagnostic testing for fetal anomalies.

Authors:  Annika Åhman; Anna Sarkadi; Peter Lindgren; Christine Rubertsson
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2016-09-13       Impact factor: 3.007

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.