How do prospective parents who decline prenatal screening account for their decision? A qualitative study

Social Science and Medicine

Volumn 69, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 274-277

  Gottfredsdóttir, Helga ^a   Björnsdóttir, Kristín ^a   Sandall, Jane ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ICELAND   (Iceland)

^b KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Decision making; Dow s syndrome; Iceland; Nuchal translucency screening; Pregnancy; Prospective parents

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE; PREGNANCY; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS;

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOWN SYNDROME; FAMILY DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; FIRST TRIMESTER PREGNANCY; GESTATION PERIOD; HEALTH CENTER; HUMAN; ICELAND; MALE; NUCHAL TRANSLUCENCY MEASUREMENT; PARENTAL ATTITUDE; PRENATAL SCREENING; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SAMPLE SIZE; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW;

ABORTION, INDUCED; DECISION MAKING; DOWN SYNDROME; FEMALE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; ICELAND; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; MALE; NUCHAL TRANSLUCENCY MEASUREMENT; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY TRIMESTER, FIRST; PREGNANCY TRIMESTER, SECOND; PRENATAL CARE; TREATMENT REFUSAL;

EURASIA; EUROPE; ICELAND; NORTHERN EUROPE; SCANDINAVIA;

EID: 67649410334     PISSN: 02779536     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.05.004     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Browner C.H., and Press N. The production of authoritative knowledge in American prenatal care. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 10 (1996) 141-156
2. Bryant L.D., Green J.M., and Hewison J. Understanding of Down's syndrome: a Q methodological investigation. Social Science & Medicine 63 (2006) 1188-1200
3. Bryant L., Hewison J.D., and Green J. Attitudes towards prenatal diagnosis and termination in women who have a sibling with Down's syndrome. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 23 (2005) 181-198
4. Di Gregorio S. Teaching grounded theory with QSR NVivo. Qualitative Research Journal 3 (2003) 79-95 [Special issue]
5. Garcia E., Timmermans D.R., and van Leuwen E. The impact of ethical beliefs on decisions about prenatal screening tests: searching for justification. Social Science & Medicine 66 3 (2008) 753-764
6. Geirsson R.T., Gardarsdóttir G., Palsson G., Bjarnadóttir R.I., and Hardardóttir H. Skýrsla frá faedingaskráningunni fyrir árid 2005 (Registration of births in Iceland in 2006) (2006), Landspitali-Haskolasjukrahus [Landspitali University Hospital], Reykjavik
7. Gottfredsdóttir, H., Sandall, J., & Björnsdóttir, K. This is what you do when you are pregnant: a qualitative study on prospective parents who accept nuchal translucency screening. Midwifery. Available online 04.03.08. in press.
8. Heyman B., Lewando-Hundt G., Sandall J., Spencer K., Williams C., Grellier R., et al. On being at higher risk: a qualitative study of prenatal screening for chromosomal anomalies. Social Science & Medicine 62 10 (2006) 2360-2372
9. Kagan O.K., Avgidou K., Molina F., Gajewska K., and Nicolaides K.H. Relation between increased fetal nuchal translucency thickness and chromosomal defects. Obstetrics & Gynecology 107 (2006) 6-10
10. Kjaergaard S., Hahnemann J.M., Skibsted L., Neerup L., Sperling H., Zingenberg A., et al. Prenatal diagnosis in Denmark after the introduction of nuchal translucency screening. European Journal of Human Genetics 15 Suppl. 1 (2007)
11. Law on the disabled, no. 59, 1992, § 7.
12. Lippman A. Embodied knowledge and making sense of prenatal diagnosis. Journal of Genetic Counseling 8 (1999) 255-274
13. Markens S., Browner C.H., and Press N. Because of the risks: how US pregnant women account for refusing prenatal screening. Social Science & Medicine 49 (1999) 359-369
14. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence [NICE]. NICE clinical guideline 62. Antenatal care: Routine care for the healthy pregnant woman (2008), Author, London. http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/CG062NICEguideline.pdf Retrieved April 10th 2008 from
15. Pilnick A. 'It's something for you both to think about': choice and decision making in nuchal translucency screening for Down's syndrome. Sociology Health and Illnesses 30 4 (2008) 511-530
16. Rapp R. Testing the women, testing the fetus (2000), Routledge, NY
17. Ritchie J., Spencer L., and O'Connor W. Carrying out qualitative analysis. In: Ritchie J., and Lewis J. (Eds). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (2003), Sage Publications, London 219-262
18. Santalahti P., Hemminki E., Aro A., Helenius H., and Ryynänen M. Participation in prenatal selective termination in Finnish maternity care. Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy 14 2 (1999) 71-79
19. Santalahti P., Hemminki E., Latikka A.M., and Ryynänen M. Women's decision making in prenatal screening. Social Science & Medicine 46 (1998) 1067-1076
20. Saxton M. Why members of the disability community oppose prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion. In: Parens E., and Asch A. (Eds). Prenatal testing and disability rights (2000), Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC 147-164
21. Shakespeare T. Choices and rights: eugenics genetics and disability equality. Disability & Society 13 (1998) 665-681
22. Williams C., Sandall J., Lewando Hundt G., Grellier R., Heyman B., and Spencer K. 'Women as 'moral pioneers'?: experiences of first trimester nuchal translucency screening. Social Science & Medicine 61 9 (2005) 1983-1992