OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to explore the motivations of pregnant women in participating in an ultrasound study and the acceptability of vaginal ultrasound examinations. METHODS: A prospective sample of 270 women were asked one question: "Can you tell me what motivated you to participate in the study?" The data were then analyzed through a qualitative thematic analysis with an inductive approach. In addition to the thematic analysis, quantification of the data was performed to enhance the qualitative result. RESULTS: Through the thematic analysis, 5 themes emerged from the responses of the participants: altruism, research, personal experience, personal benefit, and finding out. All responses were relatively short, and some responses included more than one theme. CONCLUSIONS: Vaginal ultrasound examinations were acceptable to the participants, and pregnant women had many motivations to participate. Regardless of race, ethnicity, or insurance status, the women in our study were altruistic and curious about our research.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to explore the motivations of pregnant women in participating in an ultrasound study and the acceptability of vaginal ultrasound examinations. METHODS: A prospective sample of 270 women were asked one question: "Can you tell me what motivated you to participate in the study?" The data were then analyzed through a qualitative thematic analysis with an inductive approach. In addition to the thematic analysis, quantification of the data was performed to enhance the qualitative result. RESULTS: Through the thematic analysis, 5 themes emerged from the responses of the participants: altruism, research, personal experience, personal benefit, and finding out. All responses were relatively short, and some responses included more than one theme. CONCLUSIONS: Vaginal ultrasound examinations were acceptable to the participants, and pregnant women had many motivations to participate. Regardless of race, ethnicity, or insurance status, the women in our study were altruistic and curious about our research.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Anne Drapkin Lyerly; Lisa M Mitchell; Elizabeth Mitchell Armstrong; Lisa H Harris; Rebecca Kukla; Miriam Kuppermann; Margaret Olivia Little Journal: Hastings Cent Rep Date: 2009 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.683
Authors: Linda B Cottler; Donna Jo McCloskey; Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola; Nancy M Bennett; Hal Strelnick; Molly Dwyer-White; Deborah E Collyar; Shaun Ajinkya; Sarena D Seifer; Catina Callahan O'Leary; Catherine W Striley; Bradley Evanoff Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2013-02-14 Impact factor: 9.308