Midwives' views on appropriate antenatal counselling for congenital anomaly tests: Do they match clients' preferences?

Midwifery

Volumn 30, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 600-609

  Martin, Linda ^a   Hutton, Eileen K ^a,e   Spelten, Evelien R ^a   Gitsels Van der Wal, Janneke T ^a,f   Van Dulmen, Sandra ^b,c,d  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b NETHERLANDS INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH   (Netherlands)

^c RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH EASTERN NORWAY   (Norway)

^e MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^f VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Antenatal counselling; Congenital anomalies; Midwives; Professional opinions

Indexed keywords

ADULT; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONGENITAL ABNORMALITIES; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DECISION MAKING; DENMARK; ECHOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FETUS ECHOGRAPHY; GENETIC COUNSELING; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; MIDDLE AGED; MIDWIFE; NURSING; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PREGNANCY; PSYCHOLOGY; QUESTIONNAIRE;

ADULT; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; COHORT STUDIES; CONGENITAL ABNORMALITIES; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DECISION MAKING; DENMARK; FEMALE; GENETIC COUNSELING; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; MIDWIFERY; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PREGNANCY; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, PRENATAL;

EID: 84901290260     PISSN: 02666138     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2013.08.012     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Charles C., Gafnia A., Whelan T. Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Social Science and Medicine 1999, 49:651-661.
2. Christiaens W., Nieuwenhuijze M.J., de Vries R. Trends in the medicalisation of childbirth in Flanders and the Netherlands. Midwifery 2013, 29:e1-e8. 10.1013/j.midw.2010,08,010.
3. Corke C.F., Stow P.J., Green D.T., Agar J.W., Henry M.J. Learning in practice. How doctors discuss major interventions with high risk patients: an observational study. Britisch Medical Journal Online First 2004, 1-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38293.435069.DE.
4. de Boer J., Zeeman K. KNOV-Guideline Prenatal Midwifery Led Care: Recommendation for Coaching, Interaction and Information Giving 2008, KNOV, Utrecht, (in Dutch).
5. Durand M.A., Stiel M., Boivin J., Elwyn G. Information and decision support needs of parents considering amniocentesis: interviews with pregnant women and health professionals. Health Expectations 2010, 13:125-138.
6. Elwyn G., Frosch D., Thomson R., et al. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2012, 27:1361-1367.
7. Elwyn G. Arriving at the postmodern medical consultation. European Journal of General Practice 2004, 10:93-97.
8. Field A Discovering Statistics Using SPSS 2009, Sage Publishers, London. 3rd edn.
9. Fracheboud, J., van Agt, H.M.E., de Koning, H.J., 2012. Monitor 2010: Reported Screening on Down's Syndrome/Structural Ultrasound Investigation. Final Report. July 2012 (in Dutch).
10. Health Council Act Population Screening on Down Syndrome and Neural Tube Defects 2007, Gezondheidsraad, Den Haag, (Publication no. 2007/05WBO (in Dutch).
11. Hingstman L., Kenens R.J. Numbers from the Midwifery Registrations 2011, Nivel, Utrecht, (in Dutch).
12. Jakobsen T.R., Sogaard K., Tabor A. Implications of a first trimester Down's syndrome screening program on timing of malformation detection. Acta Obstetrica et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2011, 90:728-736.
13. Jansen J., Butow P.N., van Weert J.C., et al. Does age really matter? Recall of information presented to newly referred patients with cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2008, 26:5450-5457.
14. KNOV, 2010. Digital Individual Post-Graduate Course (DIN). KNOV, Utrecht (in Dutch). URL: (last accessed 06-02-2012). http://www.leden.knov.nl/leden/30werken_aan_kwaliteit/19bij_en_nascholing/Digitale_individuele_nascholing_DIN.
15. Kramer P. The General Practitioner-Patient Relation Anno 2011 2011, TNS NIPO, Amsterdam.
16. Liefhebber S., van Dam C., Waelput A. Professional Profile of Midwives 2005, KNOV, Bilthoven, (in Dutch).
17. Mannien J., Klomp T., Wiegers T., et al. Evaluation of primary care midwifery in the Netherlands: design and rationale of a dynamic cohort study (DELIVER). BioMedical Central Health Services Research 2012, 12. http://dx. doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-69.
18. Martin L., van Dulmen S., Spelten E., de Jonge A., de Cock P., Hutton E. Prenatal counseling for congenital anomaly tests: parental preferences and perceptions of midwife performance. Prenatal Diagnosis 2013, 33:1-12.
19. Mazzi M.A., Bensing J., Rimondini M., et al. How do lay people assess the quality of physicians' communicative responses to patients' emotional cues and concerns? An international multicentre study based on videotaped medical consultations. Patient Education and Counseling 2012, 90:347-353.
20. Mearns D., Thorne B. Person-Centered Counselling in Action 1999, Sage Publications, London. 2nd edn.
21. Meiser B., Irle J., Lobb E., Barlow-Stewart K. Assessment of the content and process of genetic counselling: a critical review of empirical studies. Journal of Genetic Counseling 2008, 17:434-451.
22. National Institute for Public Health and Environment (RIVM) Scenario Prenatal Screening. Down Syndrome and Structural Ultrasound Investigation Version 2.0 2011, National Institute for Public Health and Environment, Bilthoven, (in Dutch).
23. Nieuwenhuijze M.J., de Jonge A., Korstjens I. Influence of birthing positions affects women's sense of control in second stage of labour. Midwifery 2013, 10.1016/j.midw.2012.12.007.
24. O'Connor A.M., Légaré F., Stacey D. Risk communication in practice: the contribution of decision aids. British Medical Journal 2003, 327:736-740.
25. Oepkes P., Wieringa J. The right to know; the 20-weeks ultrasound investigation facilitates a conscious choice. Medisch Contact 2008, 31/32:1296-1297. (in Dutch).
26. Pirzadeh S.M., McCarthy Veach P., Bartels D.M., Kao J., Leroy B.S. A national survey of genetic counselors' personal values. Journal of Genetic Counseling 2007, 16:763-773.
27. Rademakers J., Delnoij D., de Boer D. Structure, process or outcome: which contributes most to patients' overall assessment of healthcare quality?. British Medical Journal Quality Safety 2011, 20:326-331.
28. Roter D., Ellington L., Hamby Erby L., Larson S., Dudley W. The genetic counselling video project (GCVP). American Journal of Medical Genetics Part C 2006, 142C:209-220.
29. Schoonen H.M., van Agt H.M.E., Essink-Bot M.L., Wildschut H.I., Steegers E.A.P., de Koning H.J. Informed decision-making in prenatal screening for Down's syndrome: what knowledge is relevant?. Patient Education and Counseling 2011, 84:265-270.
30. Schoonen H.M., Essink-Bot M.L., van Agt H.M., Wildschut H.I., Steegers E.A., de Koning H.J. Informed decision-making about the fetal anomaly scan: what knowledge is relevant?. Utrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2011, 37:649-657.
31. Sheets K.B., Best R.G., Brastington C.K., Will M.C. Balanced information about Down syndrome: what is essential?. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A 2011, 155:1246-1257.
32. Shiloh S., Gerad L., Goldman B. Patients' information needs and decision-making processes: what can be learned from genetic counselees?. Health Psychology 2006, 25:211-219.
33. Smets E., van Zwieten M., Michie S. Comparing genetic counselling with non-genetic health care interactions: two of a kind? Review article. Patient Education and Counselling 2007, 68:225-234.
34. Stichting Samenwerkende Opleidingen Verloskunde (SSOV), KNOV, NHG, NVOG, VKGN, VSOP and Erfocentrum Teachers Guideline for Training Communication Skills Regarding Prenatal Screening 2007, SSOV, Bilthoven, (in Dutch).
35. Tischler R., Hudgins L., Blumenfeld Y.J., Greely H.T., Ormond K.E. Noninvasive prenatal diagnosis: pregnant women's interest and expected uptake. Prenatal Diagnosis 2011, 31:1292-1299.
36. van Agt H.M.E., Schoonen H.M.H.J.D., Wildschut H.I.J., De Koning H.J., Essink-Bot M.L. Health Education for the Pre- and Neonatal Screenings Program: Questionnaires Regarding the National Evaluation of the Providing Procedures 2007, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, (in Dutch).
37. van Zwieten M., Willems D., Knegt L., Leschot N. Communication with patients during the prenatal testing procedure: an explorative qualitative study. Patient Education and Counseling 2006, 63:161-168.
38. van den Brink-Muinen A., van Dulmen S.M., de Haes H.C., Visser A.P., Schellevis F.G., Bensing J.M. Has patients' involvement in the decision-making process changed over time?. Health Expectations 2006, 9:333-342.
39. van Zwieten M.C.B. The importance of a conscious choice but what is the choice about? The set of possibilities during decision-making about prenatal congenital anomaly tests. De Psycholoog 2008, 43:20-25. (in Dutch).
40. Wiegers T.A. The quality of maternity care services as experienced by women in the Netherlands. BMC Pregnancy Birth 2009, 9:18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-9-18.
41. Willis G.B. Cognitive Interviewing. A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design 2005, Sage Publications, London.
42. Yu J. A systematic review of issues around antenatal screening and prenatal diagnostic testing for genetic disorders: women of Asian origin in western countries. Health and Social Care in the Community 2012, 4:329-346.