Unexpected diagnosis of fetal abnormality: Women's encounters with caregivers

Birth

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 80-88

  Lalor, Joan G ^a   Devane, Declan ^a   Begley, Cecily M ^a  

^a TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Communicating bad news; Continuity of care; Fetal abnormality; Prenatal diagnosis; Prenatal ultrasound

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CAREGIVER; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; EMPATHY; FAMILY; FEMALE; FETUS DISEASE; FETUS ECHOGRAPHY; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; IRELAND; MEDICAL STAFF; POPULATION RISK; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; SECOND TRIMESTER PREGNANCY; SUPPORT GROUP; THEORETICAL STUDY; WOMEN'S HEALTH;

ADULT; FEMALE; FETAL DISEASES; HUMANS; IRELAND; MOTHERS; NARRATION; NURSE-PATIENT RELATIONS; PREGNANCY; PREGNANT WOMEN; PRENATAL CARE; PROFESSIONAL-PATIENT RELATIONS; QUESTIONNAIRES; SELF EFFICACY; STRESS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, PRENATAL; WOMEN'S HEALTH;

EID: 33847077233     PISSN: 07307659     EISSN: 1523536X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2006.00148.x     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Bricker L, Garcia J, Henderson J, et al. Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and women's views. Health Technol Assess 2000;4(16):1-193.
2. Whittle M, Honest H. Antenatal Ultrasound Screening. Ultrasound Survey of England 2002. London, UK: National Health Service, 2005.
3. Ritchie K, Boynton J, Bradbury I, et al. Routine Ultrasound Scanning Before 24 Weeks of Pregnancy. Health Technology Assessment Report 5. Glasgow, UK: National Health Service Quality Improvement Scotland, 2004.
4. Lalor J, Devane D, Mc Parland P. Ultrasound Screening for Fetal Abnormality in Ireland: What's Happening? Irish Perinatal Society Conference Proceedings, Dublin, 2006.
5. Ewigman B, Crane J, Frigoletto F, et al. Effect of prenatal ultrasound screening on perinatal outcome. N Engl J Med 1993;329:821-827.
6. Grandjean H, Larroque D, Levi S. The performance of routine ultrasonographic screening of pregnancies in the Eurofetus study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181:446-454.
7. Proud J. Understanding Obstetric Ultrasound. London, UK: Books for Midwives, 1994.
8. 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.
9. Farrant W. Who's for amniocentesis? The politics of prenatal screening. In: Homans H, ed. The Sexual Politics of Reproduction. London, UK: Gower, 1985:90-177.
10. Green J, Snowdon C, Statham H. Pregnant women's attitudes to abortion and prenatal screening. J Reprod Infant Psychol 1993;11:31-39.
11. Statham H, Green J, Kafetsios K. Who worries that something might be wrong with the baby? A prospective study of 1072 pregnant women. Birth 1997;24(4):223-233.
12. Statham H, Solomou W, Green J. When a Baby Has an Abnormality: A Study of Parents' Experiences. Cambridge, UK: Centre for Family Research, University of Cambridge, 2001.
13. Ptacek JT, Eberhardt TL. Breaking bad news: A review of the literature. JAMA 1996;276:496-502.
14. Hollingsworth J, Daly-Jones E. The sonographer's dilemma. In: Abramsky L, Chapple J, eds. Prenatal Diagnosis: The Human Side. 2nd ed. Cheltenham, UK: Nelson Thornes, 2003:98-106.
15. Jorgensen C, Uddenberg N, Ursing I. Diagnosis of fetal malformation in the 32nd week of gestation: A psychological challenge to the woman and the doctor. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 1985;4:73-82.
16. Maijala H, Astedt-Kurki P, Paavilainen E, Vaisanen L. Interaction between caregivers and families expecting a malformed child. J Adv Nurs 2003;42(1):37-46.
17. Statham H, Solomou W, Chitty L. Prenatal diagnosis of fetal abnormality: Psychological effects on women in low-risk pregnancies. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2000;14(4):731-747.
18. Alkazaleh F, Thomas M, Grebenyuk J, et al. What women want: Women's preferences of caregiver behaviour when prenatal sonography findings are abnormal. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004;23:56-62.
19. Hunfeld J, Wladimiroff J, Passchier J. Emotional reactions in women in late pregnancy (24 weeks or longer) following the ultrasound diagnosis of a severe or lethal fetal malformation. Prenat Diagn 1993;13:603-612.
20. Burgoine G, Van Kirk S, Romm J, et al. Comparison of perinatal grief after dilation and evacuation of labor induction in second trimester terminations for fetal anomalies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192:1928-1932.
21. Zeanah C. Adaptation following perinatal loss: A critical review. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1989;28(3):467-480.
22. Turton P, Hughes P, Evans C, Fainman D. The impact of midtrimester abortion techniques on patients and staff. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1979;135:235-238.
23. Brisch K, Munz D, Bemmerer-Mayer K, et al. Coping styles of pregnant women after prenatal ultrasound screening for fetal malformation. J Psychosom Res 2003;55:91-97.
24. Statham H, Solomou W, Green J. Continuing a pregnancy after the diagnosis of an anomaly: Parents' experiences. In: Abramsky L, Chapple J, eds. Prenatal Diagnosis: The Human Side. 2nd ed. Cheltenham, UK: Nelson Thornes, 2003:164-177.
25. Carvalho MHB, Brizot ML, Lopes LM, et al. Detection of fetal structural abnormalities at the 11-14 week ultrasound scan. Prenat Diagn 2002;22:1-4.
26. Sandelowski M, Corson Jones L. Couples' evaluations of foreknowledge of fetal impairment. Clin Nurs Res 1996;5(1):81-86.
27. Peller A, Westgate M, Holmes L. Trends in congenital malformations, 1974-1999: Effect of prenatal diagnosis and elective termination. Obstet Gynecol 2004;104(5, pt 1):957-964.
28. Tymstra T, Bosboom J, Bouman K. Prenatal diagnosis of Down's syndrome: Experiences of women who decided to continue with the pregnancy. Int J Risk Saf Med 2004;16:91-96.
29. Mansfield C, Hopfer S, Marteau T. Termination rates after prenatal diagnosis of Down's syndrome, spina bifida, anencephaly, and Turner and Klinefelter syndromes: A systematic literature review. Prenat Diagn 1999;19:808-812.
30. Jorgensen C, Uddenberg N, Ursing I. Ultrasound diagnosis of fetal malformation in the second trimester: The psychological reactions of the women. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 1985;4:31-40.
31. Green J, Statham H, Snowdon F. Screening for fetal abnormality: Attitudes and experiences. In: Chard T, Richards M, eds. Obstetrics in the 1990s: Current Controversies. London, UK: Mac Keith Press, 1992:65-89.
32. Chitty L, Barnes C, Berry C. Continuing with pregnancy after a diagnosis of lethal abnormality: Experience of five couples and recommendations for management. BMJ 1996;313:478-480.
33. Edwins J. From a different planet: Women who choose to continue their pregnancy after a diagnosis of Down's syndrome. Pract Midwife 2000;3(4):21-24.
34. Finnemore P. Future Imperfect: Coping and Communication in Continuing Pregnancy after Diagnosis of Fetal Abnormality. London, UK: University of Middlesex, 2000.
35. Abramsky L, Chapple J. Prenatal Diagnosis: The Human Side. London, UK: Chapman & Hall, 1994.
36. Redlinger-Grosse K, Bernhardt B, Berg K, et al. The decision to continue: The experiences and needs of parents who receive a prenatal diagnosis of holoprosencephaly. Am J Med Genet 2002;112:369-378.
37. Ralston S, Wertz D, Chelmow D, et al. Pregnancy outcomes after prenatal diagnosis of aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol 2001;97(5):729-733.
38. Blumer H. Symbolic Interactionism. Perspective and Method. 1st paperback ed. Los Angeles, Calif: Prentice-Hall Inc, 1986.
39. Glaser B. Theoretical Sensitivity. San Francisco, Calif: Sociology Press, 1978.
40. Glaser B. Grounded Theory Perspective III: Theoretical Coding. San Francisco, Calif: Sociology Press, 2005.
41. Glaser B, Strauss A. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter, 1967.
42. Creswell JW. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. London: Sage, 1998.
43. Jasper MA. Issues in phenomenology for researchers of nursing. J Adv Nurs 1994;19:309-314.
44. Schuth W, Karck U, Reisch S. Parent's needs after ultrasound diagnosis of a fetal malformation: An empirical deficit analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1994;4:124-129.
45. Garvin BJ, Kim C-J. Measurement of preference for information in U.S. and Korean cardiac catheterization patients. Res Nurs Health 2000;23:310-318.
46. Holland JC, Almanza J. Giving bad news, is there a kinder, gentler way? Cancer 1999;86(5):738-740.
47. Lalor J, Begley C. Fetal anomaly screening: What do women want to know? J Adv Nurs 55(1):11-19.
48. Michie S, Dormandy E, Marteau TM. Informed choice: Understanding knowledge in the context of screening uptake. Patient Educ Couns 2003;50(3):247-253.
49. Marteau T, Drake H, Bobrow M. Counselling following diagnosis of a fetal abnormality: The differing approaches of obstetricians, clinical geneticists and genetic nurses. J Med Ethics 1994;31:864-867.
50. Drugen A, Greb A, Johnson M, et al. Determinants of parental decision to abort for chromosome abnormalities. Prenat Diagn 1990;10:483-490.
51. Pryde P, Isada N, Hallak M, et al. Determinants of parental decision to abort or to continue after non-aneuploid ultrasound-detected fetal abnormalities. Obstet Gynecol 1992;80:52-56.
52. RCOG. Report of the RCOG Working Party on Ultrasound Screening for Fetal Abnormalities. London, UK: RCOG Press, 1997.