Sarah Meaney1, Stephen Gallagher2, Jennifer E Lutomski1,3, Keelin O'Donoghue4. 1. National Perinatal Epidemiology Centre, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. 2. Centre for Social Issues Research, Department of Psychology, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland. 3. Nijmegen Centre for Evidence Based Practice, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Decades of decline in uptake rates of perinatal autopsies has limited investigation into the causes and risk factors for stillbirth. AIMS: This study aimed to qualitatively explore perinatal autopsy decision-making processes in parents who experienced antepartum and intrapartum stillbirths. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A qualitative semi-structured interview format was utilized. The line of questioning centred on how parents came to decide on consenting or declining to have a perinatal autopsy undertaken. Interpretative phenomenological analysis was employed as the analytic strategy. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 10 parents who either consented or declined autopsy from a large tertiary maternity hospital in Cork Ireland, where there were 30 stillbirths in 2011. RESULTS: Findings revealed four superordinate themes influencing parents' decision-making which varied with type of stillbirth experienced. Those parents who experienced antepartum stillbirths were more likely to consent; thus, knowing that the child was stillborn prior to delivery rather than on the day of delivery was associated with consent. In fact, these parents had more time for meaning-making; those consenting wanted to rule out self-blame and were fearful about future pregnancies. Parents who declined autopsy wanted to protect their infant from further harm. Interestingly, parents' knowledge and understanding of the autopsy itself were acquired primarily from public discourse. CONCLUSION: Parents' decision-making regarding autopsy is profoundly affected by their emotional response to stillbirth; clinicians and other health professionals may play a key role, especially if they can address parental concerns regarding the invasiveness of the autopsy procedure.
BACKGROUND: Decades of decline in uptake rates of perinatal autopsies has limited investigation into the causes and risk factors for stillbirth. AIMS: This study aimed to qualitatively explore perinatal autopsy decision-making processes in parents who experienced antepartum and intrapartum stillbirths. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A qualitative semi-structured interview format was utilized. The line of questioning centred on how parents came to decide on consenting or declining to have a perinatal autopsy undertaken. Interpretative phenomenological analysis was employed as the analytic strategy. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 10 parents who either consented or declined autopsy from a large tertiary maternity hospital in Cork Ireland, where there were 30 stillbirths in 2011. RESULTS: Findings revealed four superordinate themes influencing parents' decision-making which varied with type of stillbirth experienced. Those parents who experienced antepartum stillbirths were more likely to consent; thus, knowing that the child was stillborn prior to delivery rather than on the day of delivery was associated with consent. In fact, these parents had more time for meaning-making; those consenting wanted to rule out self-blame and were fearful about future pregnancies. Parents who declined autopsy wanted to protect their infant from further harm. Interestingly, parents' knowledge and understanding of the autopsy itself were acquired primarily from public discourse. CONCLUSION: Parents' decision-making regarding autopsy is profoundly affected by their emotional response to stillbirth; clinicians and other health professionals may play a key role, especially if they can address parental concerns regarding the invasiveness of the autopsy procedure.
Authors: Sudhin Thayyil; Neil J Sebire; Lyn S Chitty; Angie Wade; Wk Chong; Oystein Olsen; Roxana S Gunny; Amaka C Offiah; Catherine M Owens; Dawn E Saunders; Rosemary J Scott; Rod Jones; Wendy Norman; Shea Addison; Alan Bainbridge; Ernest B Cady; Enrico De Vita; Nicola J Robertson; Andrew M Taylor Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-05-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: C Lewis; M Riddington; M Hill; O J Arthurs; J C Hutchinson; L S Chitty; C Bevan; J Fisher; J Ward; N J Sebire Journal: BJOG Date: 2019-02-06 Impact factor: 6.531
Authors: Celine Lewis; Megan Riddington; Melissa Hill; Charlotte Bevan; Jane Fisher; Lucy Lyas; Ann Chalmers; Owen J Arthurs; John C Hutchinson; Lyn S Chitty; Neil Sebire Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2019-11-04 Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: Y Dawood; C Honhoff; A-S van der Post; S D Roosendaal; B F Coolen; G J Strijkers; E Pajkrt; B S de Bakker Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2022-07 Impact factor: 8.678
Authors: C Bedwell; K Blaikie; V Actis Danna; C Sutton; R Laisser; C Tembo Kasengele; S Wakasiaka; S Victor; T Lavender Journal: BJOG Date: 2021-01-11 Impact factor: 6.531