Maternal factors associated with misperceptions of the second-trimester sonogram

Prenatal Diagnosis

Volumn 32, Issue 11, 2012, Pages 1029-1034

  Wong, Amy E ^a   Collingham, Justin P ^a   Koszut, Stacey P ^a   Grobman, William A ^a  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; ARTICLE; DEMOGRAPHY; EDUCATION; ETHNICITY; FEMALE; FETUS ECHOGRAPHY; HUMAN; INCOME; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MULTIPLE REGRESSION; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PERCEPTION; PRENATAL SCREENING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SAFETY; SECOND TRIMESTER PREGNANCY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS;

ADULT; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FEMALE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; ILLUSIONS; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY TRIMESTER, SECOND; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, PRENATAL;

EID: 84868154219     PISSN: 01973851     EISSN: 10970223     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pd.3950     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Ultrasonography in pregnancy. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 101. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2009;113:451-61.
2. Basama FMS, Leonard B, Leighton M. Audit: women's perception and knowledge of the 20weeks anomaly scan. J Obstet Gynecol 2004;24:44-6.
3. Eurenius K, Axelsson O, Gallstedt-Fransson I, Sjoden 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.
4. Lalor JG, Devane D. Information, knowledge, and expectations of the routine ultrasound scan. Midwifery 2007;23:13-22.
5. Larsen T, Nguyen TH, Munk M, et al. Ultrasound screening in the 2nd trimester. The pregnant woman's background knowledge, expectations, experiences and acceptances. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000;15:383-6.
6. Ohman SG, Waldenstrom U. Second-trimester routine ultrasound screening: expectations and experiences in a nationwide Swedish sample. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008;32:15-22.
7. Santalahti P, Aro AR, Hemminki E, et al. On what grounds do women participate in prenatal screening? Prenat Diagn 1998;18:153-65.
8. Smith RP, Titmarsh S, Overton TG. Improving patients' knowledge of the fetal anomaly scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004;24:740-4.
9. Kohut RJ, Dewey D, Love EJ. Women's knowledge of prenatal ultrasound and informed choice. J Genet Couns 2002;11:265-76.
10. Tincello DG, Jones ME. Second trimester fetal abnormality scans: do women know the reasons they are done? J Obstet Gynecol 1998;18:243-4.
11. Cho RN, Plunkett BA, Wolf WS, et al. Health literacy and patient understanding of screening tests for aneuploidy and neural tube defects. Prenat Diagn 2007;27:463-67.
12. Lea DH, Kaphingst KA, Bowen D, et al. Communicating genetic and genomic information: health literacy and numeracy considerations. Public Health Genomics 2011:14:279-89.
13. Bengiamin MI, Capitman JA, Ruwe, MB. Disparities in initiation and adherence to prenatal care: impact of insurance, race-ethnicity and nativity. Matern Child Health J 2010;14:618-24.
14. Fransen MP, Schoonen M, Mackenbach JP, et al. Ethnic differences in participation in prenatal screening for Down syndrome: a register-based study. Prenat Diagn 2010;30:988-94.