Literature DB >> 9132261

Perception of information, expectations and experiences among women and their partners attending a second-trimester routine ultrasound scan.

K Eurenius1, O Axelsson, I Gällstedt-Fransson, P O Sjöden.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate pre-scan counselling and the provision of information to parents-to-be, and their expectations before and experiences of a second trimester routine ultrasound scan. In the study, 303 pregnant women and their partners were asked to complete questionnaires before and after the scan. The main purposes of the examination were: dating, ascertaining fetal viability, and detection of multiple gestations. Although scanning for fetal malformations was not the purpose of the examination, 89% of the women and 84% of the men were concerned about this aspect. Even though it has been postulated that more women would not attend the examination if they knew it was for prenatal diagnostic purposes, the results of this study did not support this assumption. Only 57% of the women had received information at their antenatal care centers. A total of 88% of the women and 85% of the men said that they obtained sufficient information at the scan. Anxiety was low before the scan, both among women and men, with the exception of those women who had experienced problems at earlier scans. Positive feelings dominated during the scan and these feelings remained when experiences of the scan were reported by the parents-to-be after they had gone home. It is concluded that a routine second-trimester scan is a positive event for the majority of the participating women and men. In spite of this, we believe that certain measures should be taken to improve pre-scan counselling and the provision of adequate information.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9132261     DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1997.09020086.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0960-7692            Impact factor:   7.299


  7 in total

1.  Referral for fetal echocardiography is associated with increased maternal anxiety.

Authors:  Katherine B Rosenberg; Catherine Monk; Julie S Glickstein; Stephanie M Levasseur; Lynn L Simpson; Charles S Kleinman; Ismee A Williams
Journal:  J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 2.949

2.  Current knowledge, attitudes and practices of expectant women toward routine sonography in pregnancy at Naguru health centre, Uganda.

Authors:  Mubuuke Aloysius Gonzaga; Elsie Kiguli-Malwadde; Businge Francis; Byanyima Rosemary
Journal:  Pan Afr Med J       Date:  2009-11-30

3.  Do pregnant women want to know the sex of the expected child at routine ultrasound and are they interested in sex selection?

Authors:  Margareta Larsson; Minna Berglund; Emelie Jarl; Tanja Tydén
Journal:  Ups J Med Sci       Date:  2018-01-04       Impact factor: 2.384

4.  Prenatal Ultrasound Screening and Women's Expectations: an Original Study.

Authors:  Anna Glynou; Dionysios Galatis; Kalliopi Christakakou-Fotiadi; Vassilis Yalelis; Ioannis E Varvarigos; Kondylios Antonios; Sarella Angeliki; Eleftheriades Makarios; Chasalevri Eirini; Koukaki Maria; Salakos Nicolaos
Journal:  Mater Sociomed       Date:  2022-06

5.  A survey on worries of pregnant women--testing the German version of the Cambridge worry scale.

Authors:  Juliana J Petersen; Michael A Paulitsch; Corina Guethlin; Jochen Gensichen; Albrecht Jahn
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2009-12-28       Impact factor: 3.295

6.  Two sides of the same coin--an interview study of Swedish obstetricians' experiences using ultrasound in pregnancy management.

Authors:  Annika Åhman; Margareta Persson; Kristina Edvardsson; Ann Lalos; Sophie Graner; Rhonda Small; Ingrid Mogren
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2015-11-20       Impact factor: 3.007

7.  Parental experiences of uncertainty following an abnormal fetal anomaly scan: Insights using Han's taxonomy of uncertainty.

Authors:  Jennifer Hammond; Jasmijn E Klapwijk; Melissa Hill; Stina Lou; Kelly E Ormond; Karin E M Diderich; Sam Riedijk; Celine Lewis
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2020-07-07       Impact factor: 2.717

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.