Congenital anomalies: Parents' anxiety and women's concerns before prenatal testing and women's opinions towards the risk factors

Journal of Clinical Nursing

Volumn 17, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 827-836

  Sahin, Nevin Hotun ^a   Gungor, Ilkay ^a  

^a ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Anxiety; Concerns; Nurses; Nursing; Prenatal testing; Risk factors

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CONGENITAL DISORDER; FEMALE; GENETIC COUNSELING; HUMAN; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MENTAL STRESS; MIDDLE AGED; NURSING; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; RISK FACTOR; TURKEY (REPUBLIC);

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CONGENITAL ABNORMALITIES; FEMALE; GENETIC COUNSELING; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; RISK FACTORS; STRESS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; TURKEY;

EID: 39049093791     PISSN: 09621067     EISSN: 13652702     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.02023.x     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Akhan SE, Nadirgil G, Tecer A Yuksel A (2003) The quality of antenatal care in Turkey and the role of ultrasonography in the antenatal care system. Archieves of Gynecology and Obstetrics 268, 9 14.
2. Aydemir O Koroglu E (2000) [Scales used in psychiatry]. Hekimler Yayin Birligi, Ankara.
3. Bahar-Ozvaris S Akin A (2002) [Prenatal Care Services in Turkey: Turkey Demography and Health Survey 1998 Advanced Analyses] (Akin A ed Hacettepe Universitesi Turkiye Aile Saglig̀i ve Planlamasi Vakfi, UNFPA, Ankara, pp. 1 61.
4. Basama FMS, Leonard B Leighton M (2004) Audit: women's perception and knowledge of the 20 weeks anomaly scan. Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 24, 44 46.
5. Beeson D Golbus MS (1979) Anxiety engendered by amniocentesis. Birth Defects 15, 191 197.
6. Bricker L, Garcia J, Henderson J, Mugford M, Neilson J, Roberts T Martin MA (2000) Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: a systematic review of the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and women's views. Health Technology Assessment 4, 1 62.
7. Cederholm M, Axelsson O Sjödén PO (1999) Women's knowledge, concerns and psychological reactions before undergoing an invasive procedure for prenatal karyotyping. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 14, 267 272.
8. Crang-Svalenius E, Dykes AK Jörgensen C (1996) Organized routine ultrasound in the second trimester: one hundred women's experiences. Journal of Maternal Fetal Investigation 6, 219 222.
9. Csaba A, Bush MC Saphier C (2006) How painful are amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling Prenatal Diagnosis 26, 35 38.
10. Dykes K Stjernqvist K (2001) The importance of ultrasound to first-time mothers' thoughts about their unborn child. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 19, 95 104.
11. Ekelin M, Crang-Svalenius E Dykes AK (2004) A qualitative study of mothers' and fathers'experiences of routine ultrasound examination in Sweden. Midwifery 20, 335 344.
12. Eurenius K, Axelsson O, Gallstedt Fransson I Sjoden PO (1997) Perception of information, expectations and experiences among women and their partners attending a secondtrimester routine ultrasound scan. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 9, 86 90.
13. Ferber A, Onyeije CI, Zelop CM, O'Reilly-Green C Divon MY (2002) Maternal pain and anxiety in genetic amniocentesis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 19, 13 17.
14. Garcia J, Bricker L, Henderson J, Martin MA, Mugford M, Nielson J Roberts T (2002) Women's views of pregnancy ultrasound: a systematic review. Birth 29, 225 250.
15. Gotzmann L, Kolble N, Schonholzer SM, Klaghofer R, Scheuer E, Zimmermann R, Huch R Buddeberg C (2002) [Suspected fetal malformation in ultrasound examination: The partner's distress and attitudes towards ultrasound. Technology]. Ultraschall in der Medizin 23, 333 337.
16. Grant S (2000) Prenatal genetic screening. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing 5, Manuscript 3. Available at: http://www.nursingworld.org/ojin/topic13/ tpc13_3.htm (accessed 1 August 2006).
17. Health Canada (2002) Congenital Anomalies in Canada - A Perinatal Health Report. Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Ottawa, Canada. Available at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pphb-dgspsp/rhs-ssg/index.html (accessed 1 August 2006).
18. Hertling-Schaal E, Perrotin F, de Poncheville L, Lansac J Body G (2001) Maternal anxiety induced by prenatal diagnostic techniques: detection and management. Gynécologie, Obstétrique & Fertilité 29, 440 446.
19. Kleinveld JH, Timmermans DRM, Smit DJ, Ader HJ, Wal1 G Kate LP (2006) Does prenatal screening influence anxiety levels of pregnant women? A longitudinal randomised controlled trial. Prenatal Diagnosis 26, 354 361.
20. Kowalcek I, Huber C, Lammers C, Brunk J, Bieniakiewicz I Gembruch U (2003) Anxiety scores before and after prenatal testing for congenital anomalies. Archieves of Gynecology & Obstetrics 267, 126 129.
21. Lalor J Begley C (2006) Fetal anomaly screening: what do women want to know Journal of Advanced Nursing 55, 11 19.
22. Le Compte A Oner N (1975) [A Turkish adaptation and standardizing study of state-trait anxiety inventory]. In IX National Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences Congress Works, pp. 457 462.
23. McGovern MM, Goldberg JD Desnick RJ (1986) Acceptability of chorionic villi sampling for prenatal diagnosis. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 155, 25 29.
24. Milne LS Rich OJ (1981) Cognitive and affective aspects of the responses of pregnant women to sonography. Maternal-Child Nursing Journal 10, 15 39.
25. Narchi H Kulaylat N (1997) Congenital malformations: are they more prevalent in populations with a high incidence of consanguineous marriages Annals of Saudi Medicine 17, 254 256.
26. Ng CCM, Lai FM Yeo GSH (2004) Assessment of maternal anxiety levels before and after amniocentesis. Singapore Medical Journal 45, 370 374.
27. Rothenberg KJ Thomson EJ (1994) Women and Prenatal Testing: Facing the Challenges of Genetic Technology. Ohio State University Press, Columbus, p. 1.
28. Santalahti P, Aro A, Hemminki E, Helenius H Ryynanen M (1998) On what grounds do women participate in prenatal screening Prenatal Diagnosis 18, 153 165.
29. Seller M (2004) Genetic causes of congenital anomalies and their interaction with environmental factors. In EUROCAT Special Report. The Environmental Causes of Congenital Anomalies. [online] Available at: http://www.eurocat.ulster.ac.uk/pubdata (accessed 30 September 2006).
30. Tabor A Holm Jonsson M (1987) Psychological impact of amniocentesis on low-risk women. Prenatal Diagnosis 7, 443 449.
31. Tautz S, Jahn A, Molokomme I Gorgen R (2000) Between relief and fear: How rural pregnant women experience foetal ultrasound in a Botswana district hospital. Social Science & Medicine 50, 689 701.
32. Tekbas F, Ogur R Ucar M (2005) [Determination of the prevalence and the affecting factors of consanguineous marriages among young adult men]. TSK Koruyucu Hekimlik Bulteni 4, 120 128.
33. Turkey Demography and Health Survey (2003) Turkey Demography and Health Survey. Hacettepe University Institute of Demography, Ankara.
34. Van den Berg M, Timmermans DR, Ten Kate LP, van Vugt JM der Wal G (2005) Are pregnant women making informed choices about prenatal screening Genetics in Medicine 7, 332 338.
35. Villeneuve C, Laroche C, Lippman A Marrache M (1988) Psychological aspects of ultrasound imaging during pregnancy. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 33, 530 536.
36. Whynes D (2002) Receipt of information and women's attitudes towards ultrasound scanning during pregnancy. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 19, 7 12.
37. World Health Organization (1984) Diagnostic ultrasound in pregnancy: WHO view on routine screening. The Lancet 11, 361.