How personal experiences feature in women's accounts of use of information for decisions about antenatal diagnostic testing for foetal abnormality

Social Science and Medicine

Volumn 72, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 755-762

  France, Emma F ^a   Wyke, Sally ^a   Ziebland, Sue ^b   Entwistle, Vikki A ^c   Hunt, Kate ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Decision making; Health knowledge; Patient decision making; Personal experience; Pregnancy; Prenatal diagnosis; Reproductive behaviour; UK

Indexed keywords

ABNORMALITY; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH GEOGRAPHY; INFORMATION SYSTEM; PREGNANCY; QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY; REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR; WOMENS HEALTH;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BIOMEDICINE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; FEMALE; FETUS; FETUS DISEASE; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; ILLEGITIMACY; INTERVIEW; KNOWLEDGE; MALE; MEDICAL INFORMATION; PERSONAL EXPERIENCE; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PROBABILITY; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SPONTANEOUS ABORTION; SPOUSE; UNITED KINGDOM;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; FETUS; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; YOUNG ADULT;

UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 79952009684     PISSN: 02779536     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.11.031     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Abel E.K., Browner C.H. Selective compliance with biomedical authority and the uses of experiential knowledge. Pragmatic women and body politics 1998, 310-326. Cambridge University Press. M. Lock, P.A. Kaufert (Eds.).
2. Atkin K., Ahmed S., Hewison J., Green J.M. Decision-making and antenatal screening for sickle cell and thalassaemia disorders. Current Sociology 2008, vol. 56:77-98.
3. Beeson D., Golbus M.S., Opitz J.M., Reynolds R.F. Decision making: whether or not to have prenatal diagnosis and abortion for X-linked conditions. American Journal of Medical Genetics 1985, vol. 20:107-114.
4. Borkman T. Experiential knowledge: a New concept for the analysis of self-help Groups. Social Service Review 1976, vol. 50:445-456.
5. Browner C.H., Preloran H.M. Latinas, amniocentesis and the Discourse of choice. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry 2000, vol. 24(3):353-375.
6. Bury M. Illness narratives: fact or fiction. Sociology of Health & Illness 2001, vol. 23(3):263-285.
7. Code L. Taking subjectivity into account. Feminist Epistemologies 1993, 15-48. Routledge, New York. L. Alcoff, E. Potter (Eds.).
8. Davison C., Davey Smith D., Frankel S. Lay epidemiology and the prevention paradox: the implications of coronary candidacy for health education. Sociology of Health & Illness 1991, vol. 13(1):1-19.
9. Davison C., Frankel S., Davey Smith D. Inheriting heart trouble: the relevance of common-sense ideas to preventative measures. Health Education Research - Theory and Practice 1989, vol. 4(3):329-340.
10. NHS Choices - Your health, your choices 2009, Department of Health, NHS. http://www.nhs.uk/Pages/HomePage.aspx.
11. Etchegary H., Potter B., Cappelli M., Coyle D., Graham I., Walker M., et al. The influence of experiential knowledge on prenatal screening and testing decisions. Genetic Testing 2008, vol. 12(1):115-124.
12. Gabriel Y. The Voice of experience and the voice of the expert- can they speak to each other. Narrative research in health and illness 2004, 168-185. BMA Books, Blackwell, London. B. Hurwitz, T. Greenhalgh, V. Skultans (Eds.).
13. Garcia E., Timmermans D.R.M., van Leeuwen E. The impact of ethical beliefs on decisions about prenatal screening tests: searching for justification. Social Science & Medicine 2008, vol. 66:753-764.
14. Giddens A. The consequences of modernity 1990, Polity Press, Cambridge.
15. Heaton J. Reworking qualitative data 2004, Sage Publications, London.
16. Hunt K., Emslie C. Commentary: the prevention paradox in lay epidemiology - Rose revisited. International Journal of Epidemiology 2001, vol. 30:442-446.
17. Hunt K., Emslie C., Watt G. Lay constructions of a family history of heart disease: potneital for understandings in the clinical encounter. The Lancet 2001, vol. 357:1168-1171.
18. Lippman A. Embodied knowledge and making sense of prenatal diagnosis. Journal of genetic counseling 1999, vol. 8(5):255-273.
19. Locock L., Kai J. Parents' experiences of universal screening for haemoglobin disorders: implications for practice in a new genetics era. British Journal of General Practice 2008, vol. 58:161-168.
20. Markens S., Browner C.H., Preloran H.M. Interrogating the dynamics between power, knowledge and pregnant bodies in amniocentesis decision making. Sociology of Health & Illness 2010, vol. 32(1):37-56.
21. Newman T.B. The power of stories over statistics: lessons from neonatal jaundice and airplane safety. Narrative research in health and illness 2004, 257-276. BMA Books, Blackwell, London. B. Hurwitz, T. Greenhalgh, V. Skultans (Eds.).
22. Scotland N.H.S. Better Together - Scotland's patient experience programme 2009, NHS, Scotland. http://www.bettertogetherscotland.com.
23. Potter B.K., O'Reilly N., Etchegary H., Howley H., Graham I.D., Walker M., et al. Exploring informed choice in the context of prenatal testing: findings from a qualitative study. Health Expectations 2008, vol. 11(4):355-365.
24. Radley A., Billig M. Accounts of health and illness: Dilemmas and representations. Sociology of Health & Illness 1996, vol. 18(2):220-240.
25. Riessman C.K. Narrative analysis 1993, Sage Publications, California.
26. Rothman A.J., Kiviniemi M.T. Treating people with information: an analysis and review of Approaches to Communicating health risk information. JNCI Monographs 1999, vol. 1999(25):44-51.
27. Schaffer R., Kuczynski K., Skinner D. Producing genetic knowledge and citizenship through the Internet: Mothers, pediatric genetics, and cybermedicine. Sociology of Health and Illness 2008, vol. 30(1):145-149.
28. Shaw I. How lay are lay beliefs. Health - An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine 2002, vol. 6(3):287-299.
29. Sillence E., Briggs P., Harris P.R., Fishwick L. How do patients evaluate and make use of online health information. Social Science & Medicine 2007, vol. 64:1853-1862.
30. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 1974, vol. 185:1124-1131.
31. UK National Screening Committee. Screening Tests For You and Your Baby. 2008. National Screening Committee.
32. Winterbottom A., Bekker H.L., Conner M., Mooney A. Does narrative information bias individual's decision making? A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine 2008, vol. 67(12):2079-2088.
33. Wyke, S., Entwistle, V., France, E.F., Hunt, K., Jepson, R., Thompson, A.,& et.al., Information for choice: What people need, prefer and use. Report for the National Institute for Health Research Service Delivery and Organisation programme. SDO NIHR. 2010.
34. Ziebland S., Chapple A., Dumelow C., Evans J., Prinjha S., Rozmovits L. How the internet affects patients' experience of cancer: a qualitative study. British Medical Journal 2004, vol. 328:564-567.
35. Ziebland S., McPherson A. Making sense of qualitative data analysis: an introduction with illustrations from DIPEx (personal experiences of health and illness). Medical Education 2006, vol. 40:405-414.