Japanese women's attitudes towards routine ultrasound screening during pregnancy

Nursing and Health Sciences

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 95-101

  Murakami, Kyoko ^a   Tsujino, Kumiko ^a   Sase, Masakatsu ^b   Nakata, Masahiko ^c   Ito, Misae ^d   Kutsunugi, Saeko ^a  

^a YAMAGUCHI UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

^b Yamaguchi Grand Medical Center   (Japan)

^c Tokuyama Central Hospital   (Japan)

^d KAWASAKI UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL WELFARE   (Japan)

Author keywords

Anxiety; Ethics; Informed consent; Midwifery; Nursing; Prenatal ultrasound screening

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; FEMALE; FETUS ECHOGRAPHY; HUMAN; JAPAN; MASS SCREENING; PREGNANCY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE;

ADULT; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; JAPAN; MASS SCREENING; PREGNANCY; QUESTIONNAIRES; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, PRENATAL; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84857191089     PISSN: 14410745     EISSN: 14422018     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2018.2011.00670.x     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. 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.
2. Alkazaleh F, Thomas M, Grebenyuk J etal. What women want: women's preferences of caregiver behavior when prenatal sonography findings are abnormal. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2004; 23: 56-62.
3. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 101. Ultrasonography in pregnancy. Obstet. Gynecol. 2009; 113: 451-461.
4. Basama FM, Leonard B, Leighton M. Audit: women's perception and knowledge of the 20 weeks anomaly scan. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2004; 24: 44-46.
5. Boukydis CF, Treadwell MC, Delaney-Black V etal. Women's responses to ultrasound examinations during routine screens in an obstetric clinic. J. Ultrasound Med. 2006; 25: 721-728.
6. Bricker L, Garcia J, Henderson J etal. Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: a systematic review of the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and women's views. Health Technol. Assess. 2000; 4: 1-193.
7. Deprest JA, Flake AW, Gratacos E etal. The making of fetal surgery. Prenat. Diagn. 2010; 30: 653-667.
8. Ekelin M, Crang-Svalenius E, Dykes AK. A qualitative study of mothers' and fathers' experiences of routine ultrasound examination in Sweden. Midwifery 2004; 20: 335-344.
9. Eurenius K, Axelsson O, Gällstedt-Fransson I, Sjöden PO. Perception of information, expectations and experiences among women and their partners attending a second-trimester routine ultrasound scan. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 1997; 9: 86-90.
10. Genetic-Medicine-Related Societies. Guidelines for Genetic Testing 2003 (English edition: Oct 2004). [Cited 11.1.2011.] Available from URL:
11. Getz L, Kirkengen AL. Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: advancing technology, soft markers for fetal chromosomal aberrations, and unacknowledged ethical dilemmas. Soc. Sci. Med. 2003; 56: 2045-2057.
12. Gudex C, Nielsen BL, Madsen M. Why women want prenatal ultrasound in normal pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2006; 27: 145-150.
13. van den Heuvel A, Chitty L, Dormandy E etal. Is informed choice in prenatal testing universally valued? A population-based survey in Europe and Asia. BJOG 2009; 116: 880-885.
14. Hirahara F, Sumiyoshi Y, Yamanaka M, Asakura H, Sasaki S, Sakamoto S. Birth defects monitoring system. Perinat. Med. 2003; 33: 1071-1076 (in Japanese).
15. Kohut RJ, Dewey D, Love EJ. Women's knowledge of prenatal ultrasound and informed choice. J. Genet. Couns. 2002; 11: 265-276.
16. Lalor J, Begley C. Fetal anomaly screening: what do women want to know? J. Adv. Nurs. 2006; 55: 11-19.
17. Lalor JG, Devane D. Information, knowledge and expectations of the routine ultrasound scan. Midwifery 2007; 23: 13-22.
18. Larsen T, Nguyen TH, Munk M, Svendsen L, Teisner L. Ultrasound screening in the 2nd trimester. The pregnant woman's background knowledge, expectations, experiences and acceptances. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2000; 15: 383-386.
19. Long G, Sprigg A. A comparative study of routine versus selective fetal anomaly ultrasound scanning. J. Med. Screen. 1998; 5: 6-10.
20. Maternal Protection Act, 2. 14. 1948, Revision in 1996 [cited 1.11.2012] Available from URL: (in Japanese )
21. Matsuda Y. Actual conditions of maternity checkup from a survey for obstetric primary facilities. J. Jpn. Soc. Perinat. Neonatal Med. 2010; 4: 1151-1154 (in Japanese).
22. Mitchell LM. Women's experiences of unexpected ultrasound findings. J. Midwifery Womens Health 2004; 49: 228-234.
23. Molander E, Alehagen S, Berterö CM. Routine ultrasound examination during pregnancy: a world of possibilities. Midwifery 2010; 26: 18-26.
24. Mother and Child Health and Welfare Association. Maternal and Child Health Statistics of Japan. Mothers' and Children' s Health Organization, Tokyo, 2010; pp. 27-56.
25. Nakata N, Wang Y, Bhatt S. Trends in prenatal screening and diagnostic testing among women referred for advanced maternal age. Prenat. Diagn. 2010; 30: 198-206.
26. Notice No.55 by Vice-Minister in Ministry of Health, (1990.3.20.) (in Japanese)
27. Ohman GS, Waldenström U. Second-trimester routine ultrasound screening: expectations and experiences in a nationwide Swedish sample. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2008; 32: 15-22.
28. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Setting Standards to Improve Women's Health. Ultrasound Screening. Supplement to Ultrasound Screening for Fetal Abnormalities 2000. [Cited 11.1.2011.] Available from URL:
29. Saito H. ART registry system and present status of ART in Japan. Acta Obst. Gynaec. Jpn. 2010; 62: 739-745 (in Japanese).
30. Skirton H, Barr O. Antenatal screening and informed choice: a cross-sectional survey of parents and professionals. Midwifery 2010; 26: 596-602.
31. Turale S, Ito M. People of Japanese heritage. In: Purnell LD, Paulanka BJ (eds). Transcultural Health Care: A Culturally Competent Approach. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company, 2008; 260-277.
32. Whynes DK. Receipt of information and women's attitudes towards ultrasound scanning during pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2002; 19: 7-12.
33. World Health Organization. Report of a WHO Meeting on Ethical Issues in Medical Genetics, Geneva, 15-16 December 1997. Proposed International Guidlines on Ethical Issues in Medical Genetics and Genetic Services, World Health Organization Human Genetics Programme 1998[cited 11.1 2011] Available from URL:
34. Yamanaka M, Nishikawa T, Takei M etal. The outcome of malformed fetuses prenatally diagnosed before 22 week gestation and the trends of prenatal diagnosis in Japan. Jpn. J. Genet. Counsel. 2007; 27: 59-63 (in Japanese).