Ingvild Aune1, Anders Möller. 1. Sør-Trøndelag, University College, 7004 Trondheim, Norway. Ingvild.aune@hist.no
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To increase our understanding of how pregnant women experience early ultrasound examination that includes a risk assessment for chromosomal anomalies and how such women perceive the test results. DESIGN/ SETTING: Qualitative study at St. Olavs Hospital in Norway. Both pre- and post-examination interviews were conducted with ten pregnant women who underwent risk assessment for chromosomal anomalies. Grounded theory was used to analyse the results. FINDINGS: The study generated a core category (I want a choice, but I don't want to decide), which related to the conflict between choice and decision making. There were also five main categories (existential choices, search for knowledge, anxiety, feeling of guilt and counselling and care). The main categories describe the complex feelings experienced by the women regarding the risk assessment. Factors contributing to the difficulty of choice included loss of control and coping, emotional connection to the fetus and social pressure. As the women sought independent choices without any external influence, they also felt greater responsibility. The women's understanding of the actual risk varied, and they used different types of logic and methods to evaluate the risk and reach a decision. CONCLUSIONS: The pregnant women in this study wanted prenatal diagnostic information and easy access to specialty services. Stress-related feelings and non-transparent information about the actual and perceived risks as well as personal moral judgments made the decision-making process complicated. Improved distribution of information and frequent contact with health professionals may help such women to make informed choices in accordance with their values and beliefs.
OBJECTIVE: To increase our understanding of how pregnant women experience early ultrasound examination that includes a risk assessment for chromosomal anomalies and how such women perceive the test results. DESIGN/ SETTING: Qualitative study at St. Olavs Hospital in Norway. Both pre- and post-examination interviews were conducted with ten pregnant women who underwent risk assessment for chromosomal anomalies. Grounded theory was used to analyse the results. FINDINGS: The study generated a core category (I want a choice, but I don't want to decide), which related to the conflict between choice and decision making. There were also five main categories (existential choices, search for knowledge, anxiety, feeling of guilt and counselling and care). The main categories describe the complex feelings experienced by the women regarding the risk assessment. Factors contributing to the difficulty of choice included loss of control and coping, emotional connection to the fetus and social pressure. As the women sought independent choices without any external influence, they also felt greater responsibility. The women's understanding of the actual risk varied, and they used different types of logic and methods to evaluate the risk and reach a decision. CONCLUSIONS: The pregnant women in this study wanted prenatal diagnostic information and easy access to specialty services. Stress-related feelings and non-transparent information about the actual and perceived risks as well as personal moral judgments made the decision-making process complicated. Improved distribution of information and frequent contact with health professionals may help such women to make informed choices in accordance with their values and beliefs.
Authors: Antina de Jong; Wybo J Dondorp; Anja Krumeich; Julie Boonekamp; Jan M M van Lith; Guido M W R de Wert Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2012-11-09
Authors: Agathe Delanoë; Johanie Lépine; Stéphane Turcotte; Maria Esther Leiva Portocarrero; Hubert Robitaille; Anik Mc Giguère; Brenda J Wilson; Holly O Witteman; Isabelle Lévesque; Laurence Guillaumie; France Légaré Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2016-10-28 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Stina Lou; Michal Frumer; Mette M Schlütter; Olav B Petersen; Ida Vogel; Camilla P Nielsen Journal: Health Expect Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Fabienne Trottmann; Anne Elena Mollet; Sofia Amylidi-Mohr; Daniel Surbek; Luigi Raio; Beatrice Mosimann Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2022-03-03 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: An Chen; Henni Tenhunen; Paulus Torkki; Antti Peltokorpi; Seppo Heinonen; Paul Lillrank; Vedran Stefanovic Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 3.007