Informed decision-making about the fetal anomaly scan: What knowledge is relevant?

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 37, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 649-657

  Schoonen, H M H J D ^a   Essink Bot, M L ^b   Van Agt, H M E ^a   Wildschut, H I ^a   Steegers, E A P ^a   De Koning, H J ^a  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

fetal anomaly scan; informed decision making; knowledge measure; prenatal; questionnaire; screening; second trimester; ultrasound

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; DECISION MAKING; DOWN SYNDROME; ECHOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREGNANCY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE; RISK FACTOR; SECOND TRIMESTER PREGNANCY;

DECISION MAKING; DOWN SYNDROME; FEMALE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY TRIMESTER, SECOND; QUESTIONNAIRES; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 79957605149     PISSN: 09607692     EISSN: 14690705     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/uog.8906     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Bricker L, Garcia J, Henderson J, Mugford M, Neilson J, Roberts T, Martin MA,. Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: a systematic review of the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and women's views. Health Technol Assess 2000; 4:i,vi, 1-193.
2. RIVM (Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment). A brief history of the 20-week ultrasound; 2009. [Accessed 3 May 2010].
3. Boyd PA, Devigan C, Khoshnood B, Loane M, Garne E, Dolk H, EUROCAT Working Group. Survey of prenatal screening policies in Europe for structural malformations and chromosome anomalies, and their impact on detection and termination rates for neural tube defects and Down's syndrome. BJOG 2008; 115: 689-696. (Pubitemid 351514587)
4. Garcia J, Bricker L, Henderson J, Martin MA, Mugford M, Nielson J, Roberts T,. Women's views of pregnancy ultrasound: a systematic review. Birth 2002; 29: 225-250. (Pubitemid 35356888)
5. RIVM (Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment). Policy; timely information about possible disorders; 2009. [Accessed 3 May 2010].
6. Georgsson Ohman S, Waldenstrom U,. Second-trimester routine ultrasound screening: expectations and experiences in a nationwide Swedish sample. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 32: 15-22.
7. Healthcare Commission. Towards better births. A review of maternity services in England. 2008.
8. Borrell A,. Promises and pitfalls of first trimester sonographic markers in the detection of fetal aneuploidy. Prenat Diagn 2009; 29: 62-68.
9. Grijseels EW, Cohen-Overbeek TE, Adama van Scheltema PN, Groenenberg IA, Schoonderwaldt EM, Steegers EA, Wildschut HI,. Sonomarkers: subtle ultrasound findings in the 20-week ultrasound examination, which have a low association with some chromosomal and non-chromosomal abnormalities in the fetus. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2008; 152: 2225-2231.
10. Sommerseth E, Sundby J,. Women's experiences when ultrasound examinations give unexpected findings in the second trimester. Women Birth 2010; 23: 111-116.
11. Kirwan D,. NHS fetal anomaly screening programme (NHS FASP). 2010.
12. RCOG. Report of the RCOG Working Party on Ultrasound Screening for Fetal Abnormalities. RCOG Press: London, 1997.
13. Marteau TM, Dormandy E, Michie S,. A measure of informed choice. Health Expect 2001; 4: 99-108. (Pubitemid 32464021)
14. Michie S, Dormandy E, Marteau TM,. The multi-dimensional measure of informed choice: a validation study. Patient Educ Couns 2002; 48: 87-91. (Pubitemid 36151685)
15. Schoonen HM, van Agt HM, Essink-Bot ML, Wildschut HI, Steegers EA, de Koning HJ,. Informed decision-making in prenatal screening for Down's syndrome: what knowledge is relevant? Patient Educ Couns 2010 [Epub ahead of print].
16. Kohut RJ, Dewey D, Love EJ,. Women's knowledge of prenatal ultrasound and informed choice. J Genet Couns 2002; 11: 265-276. (Pubitemid 41461931)
17. Smith RP, Titmarsh S, Overton TG,. Improving patients' knowledge of the fetal anomaly scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 24: 740-744. (Pubitemid 39657877)
18. Zapka JG, Geller BM, Bulliard JL, Fracheboud J, Sancho-Garnier H, Ballard-Barbash R, IBSN Communications Working Group. Print information to inform decisions about mammography screening participation in 16 countries with population-based programs. Patient Educ Couns 2006; 63: 126-137. (Pubitemid 44331543)
19. Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers. Recommendation No. R (90) 13 of prenatal genetic screening, prenatal genetic diagnosis and associated genetic counselling; 1990. [Accessed 3 July 2010].
20. UK National Screening Committee (NHS). Antenatal screening-working standards incorporating those for the national down syndrome screening programme for England; 2003. [Accessed 3 July 2010].
21. RIVM (Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment). Information about screening for Down's Syndrome and the 20-week ultrasound; 2009. [Accessed 3 May 2010].
22. NVOG (Dutch Association of Obstetrics and Gynaecology). Kwaliteitsnorm 6-Prenatale screening op foetale afwijkingen; 2005. [Accessed 3 June 2010].
23. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Report of the Working Party on Biochemical Markers and the Detection of Down's Syndrome. RCOG Press: London, 1993.
24. Hak T, van der Veer K, Jansen H,. The Three-Step Test-Interview (TSTI): an observational instrument for pretesting self-completion questionnaires. ERIM Report ERS-2004-029- ORG. Erasmus Research Institute of Management: Rotterdam, 2004.
25. Jaccard J, Dodge T, Guilamo-Ramos V,. Metacognition, risk behavior, and risk outcomes: the role of perceived intelligence and perceived knowledge. Health Psychol 2005; 24: 161-170. (Pubitemid 40365678)
26. Raju PS, Lonial SC, Mangold WG,. Differential effects of subjective knowledge, objective knowledge, and usage experience on decision making: an exploratory investigation. J Consum Psychol 1995; 4: 153-180.
27. Green JM, Hewison J, Bekker HL, Bryant LD, Cuckle HS,. Psychosocial aspects of genetic screening of pregnant women and newborns: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2004; 8:iii, ix,x, 1-109.
28. Hunt LM, de Voogd KB, Castaneda H,. The routine and the traumatic in prenatal genetic diagnosis: does clinical information inform patient decision-making? Patient Educ Couns 2005; 56: 302-312. (Pubitemid 40249713)
29. Santalahti P, Aro AR, Hemminki E, Helenius H, Ryynanen M,. On what grounds do women participate in prenatal screening? Prenat Diagn 1998; 18: 153-165. (Pubitemid 28077409)
30. Stephens MB, Montefalcon R, Lane DA,. The maternal perspective on prenatal ultrasound. J Fam Pract 2000; 49: 601-604. (Pubitemid 30663056)
31. Ahman A, Runestam K, Sarkadi A,. Did I really want to know this? Pregnant women's reaction to detection of a soft marker during ultrasound screening. Patient Educ Couns 2010; 81: 87-93.
32. Vassy C,. How prenatal diagnosis became acceptable in France. Trends Biotechnol 2005; 23: 246-249. (Pubitemid 40615537)