Pregnant women's responses to information about an increased risk of carrying a baby with Down syndrome

Birth

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 64-73

  Georgsson Öhman, Susanne ^a   Saltvedt, Sissel ^b   Waldenström, Ulla ^a   Grunewald, Charlotta ^b   Olin Lauritzen, Sonja ^c  

^a KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^b STOCKHOLM SÖDER HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^c STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AMNIOCENTESIS; ANXIETY; ARTICLE; CHROMOSOME ANALYSIS; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOWN SYNDROME; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH PROGRAM; HIGH RISK PREGNANCY; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL INFORMATION; PREGNANCY TERMINATION; PREGNANT WOMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; SCORING SYSTEM; SCREENING TEST; ULTRASOUND;

EID: 33748520603     PISSN: 07307659     EISSN: 1523536X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0730-7659.2006.00075.x     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. The Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care. Routine Ultrasound Screening During Pregnancy. Report 139. Stockholm: Author, 1998. In Swedish.
2. Snijders RJ, Noble P, Sebire N, et al. UK multicentre project on assessment of risk of trisomy 21 by maternal age and fetal nuchal-translucency thickness at 10-14 weeks of gestation. Lancet 1998;352:343-346.
3. Williams C, Alderson P, Farsides B. Dilemmas encountered by health practitioners offering nuchal translucency screening: A qualitative case study. Prenat Diagn 2002;22:216-220.
4. Mant D, Fowler G. Mass screening: theory and ethics. BMJ 1990;300:916-918.
5. Posner T. Ethical issues and the individual woman in cancer screening programmes. J Adv Health Nurs Care 1993;2:55-69.
6. Marteau TM. Psychology and screening: Narrowing the gap between efficacy and effectiveness. Br J Clin Psychol 1994;33:1-10.
7. Baillie C, Smith J, Hewison J, Mason G. Ultrasound screening for chromosomal abnormality: Women's reactions to false positive results. Br J Health Psychol 2000;5:377-394.
8. Skrabanek P. Why is preventive medicine exempted from ethical constraints? J Med Ethics 1990;16:187-190.
9. Statham H, Green J. Serum screening for Down's syndrome: Some women's experiences. BMJ 1993;307:174-176.
10. Marteau TM. Towards informed decisions about prenatal testing: a review. Prenat Diagn 1995;15:1215-1226.
11. Nielsen C, Lang RS. Principles of screening. In: Lang RS, Isaacson JH, eds: Screening. Philadelphia; WB Saunders,1999:1323-1337.
12. Lederman Placzek R. Anxiety and stress in pregnancy: Significance and nursing assessment. NAACOGS Clin Issues Perinat Womens Health Nurs 1990;2:279-288.
13. Shereshefsky P, Yarrow L. Psychological Aspects of a First Pregnancy and Early Postnatal Adaptation. New York: Raven Press, 1974.
14. Statham H, Green JM, Kafetsios K. Who worries that something might be wrong with the baby? A prospective study of 1072 pregnant women. Birth 1997;24:223-233.
15. Delhom G, Olsen J. Ethical and psychological aspects of screening. In: Hugod C, Fog J, eds. Screening: Why, When, and How. Copenhagen: National Board of Health, 1992:37-47.
16. Tymstra T. Prenatal diagnosis, prenatal screening, and the rise of the tentative pregnancy. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1991;7:509-516.
17. Saltvedt S, Almström H, Kublickas M, et al. Screening for Down syndrome based on maternal age or fetal nuchal translucency: A randomized controlled trial in 39,572 pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005;25:537-545.
18. Kvale S. Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE, 1996.
19. Fossey E, Harvey C, McDermott F, Davidson L. Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Aust NZ J Psychiatry 2002;36(6):717-732.
20. Giacomini MK, Cook DJ. Users' guides to the medical literature: XXIII. Qualitative research in health care B. What are the results and how do they help me care for my patients? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 2000;284:478-482.
21. Malterud K. Kvalitativa metoder i medicinsk forskning (Qualitative methods in medical research). Lund: Studentlitteratur, 1998. In Swedish.
22. Ekelin M, Crang-Svalenius E, Dykes A-K. A qualitative study of mothers' and fathers' experiences of routine ultrasound examination in Sweden. Midwifery 2004;20:335-344.
23. Eurenius K, Axelsson O, Gällstedt-Fransson I, Sjödén PO. Perception of information, expectations and experiences among women and their partners attending a second-trimester routine ultrasound scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997;9:86-90.
24. Thorpe K, Harker L, Pike A, Marlow N. Women's views of ultrasonography. A comparison of women's experiences of antenatal ultrasound screening with cerebral ultrasound of their newborn infant. Soc Sci Med 1993;36:311-315.
25. Rothman KB. The Tentative Pregnancy. Prenatal Diagnosis and the Future of Motherhood. Vol. 2, London: Pandora Press, 1988.
26. Green J, Statham H, Snowdon C. Screening for fetal abnormalities: Attitudes and experiences. In: Chard T, Richards, MPM, eds.: Obstetrics in the 1990s. London: MacKeith, 1992:65-89.
27. Adelswärd V, Sachs L. The meaning of 6.8: Numeracy and normality in health information talks. Soc Sci Med 1996;43:1179-1187.
28. Olin-Lauritzen S, Sachs L. Normality, risk and the future: Implicit communication of threat in health surveillance. Sociol Health Illness 2001;23:497-516.
29. Becker G. Disrupted Lives. How People Create Meaning in a Chaotic World. Berkeley, Califonia: University of California Press, 1997.
30. Williams S. Chronic illness as biographical disruption or biographical disruption as chronic illness? Reflections on a core concept. Sociol Health Illness 2000;22:40-67.
31. Waldenström U. Why do some women change their opinion about childbirth over time? Birth 2004;31:102-107.
32. Al-Jader LN, Parry-Langdon N, Smith RJW. Survey of attitudes of pregnant women towards Down syndrome screening. Prenatal Diagnosis 2000;20:23-29.
33. Garcia J, Bricker L, Henderson J, et al. Women's views of pregnancy ultrasound: A systematic review. Birth 2002;29:225-250.
34. Renn O. Perception of risks. Toxicol Lett 2004;149:405-413.
35. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science 1987;236:280-285.
36. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal 2004;24:311-322.
37. Watson MS, Hall S, Langford K. Psychological impact of the detection of soft markers on routine ultrasound scanning: A pilot study investigating the modifying role of information. Prenat Diagn 2002;22:569-575.
38. Smedler A, Bremme K. Pregnant women participating in screening must be helped with anxiety generated by alarming information. Läkartidningen 1993;59:652-653. In Swedish.
39. Goel V, Glazier R, Summers A, Holzapfel S. Psychological outcomes following maternal serum screening: A cohort study. CMAJ 1998;159:651-656.