Midwives' perceptions of communication during videotaped counseling for prenatal anomaly tests: How do they relate to clients' perceptions and independent observations?

Patient Education and Counseling

Volumn 98, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 588-597

  Martin, Linda ^a   Gitsels van der Wal, Janneke T ^a,f   Pereboom, Monique T R ^a   Spelten, Evelien R ^a   Hutton, Eileen K ^a,e   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

Health communication; Prenatal anomaly screening; Prenatal counseling; Quality of communication; Self assessment; Video recordings

Indexed keywords

ADULT; CLINICAL OBSERVATION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONGENITAL MALFORMATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATIONAL STUDY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; FEMALE; HEALTH EDUCATION; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MALE; MIDWIFE ATTITUDE; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PARENT COUNSELING; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; QUOTEPRENATAL QUESTIONNAIRE; REVIEW; SELF EVALUATION; VIDEORECORDING; CONGENITAL ABNORMALITIES; COUNSELING; GENETICS; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MIDDLE AGED; MIDWIFE; NETHERLANDS; NURSE MIDWIFE; PERCEPTION; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL CARE; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY;

ADULT; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; COMMUNICATION; CONGENITAL ABNORMALITIES; COUNSELING; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; HEALTH COMMUNICATION; HEALTH EDUCATION; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; MIDWIFERY; NETHERLANDS; NURSE MIDWIVES; PERCEPTION; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL CARE; SELF-ASSESSMENT; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; VIDEO RECORDING;

EID: 84933278937     PISSN: 07383991     EISSN: 18735134     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.02.002     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. Liefhebber S., van Dam C., Waelput A. Professional profile of midwives 2005, KNOV, Bilthoven.
2. O'Connor A.M., Légaré F., Stacey D. Risk communication in practice: the contribution of decision aids. Brit Med J 2003, 327:736-740.
3. RIVM Scenario prenatal screening. Down syndrome and structural ultrasound investigation version 2.0 2011, National Institute for Public Health & Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven.
4. O'Connor A.M., Mulley A.G., Wennberg J.E. Standard consultations are not enough to ensure decision quality regarding preference-sensitive options. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003, 95:507. Editorials.
5. Marteau T.M., Dormandy E., Michie S. A measure of informed choice. Health Expect 2001, 4:99-108.
6. Martin L., van Dulmen S., Spelten E.R., de Jonge A., de Cock P., Hutton E.K. Prenatal counseling for congenital anomaly tests: parental preferences and perceptions of midwife performance. Prenat Diagn 2013, 33:341-353.
7. Smets E., van Zwieten M., Michie S. Comparing genetic counselling with non-genetic health care interactions: two of a kind? Review article. Patient Educ Couns 2007, 68:225-234.
8. Bhogal A.K., Brunger F. Prenatal genetic counseling in cross-cultural medicine. A framework for family physicians. Clinical review. Can Fam Physician 2010, 56:993-999.
9. 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.
10. de Jong A., Dondorp W.J., de Die-Smulders C.E., Frints S.G., de Wert G.M. Non-invasive prenatal testing: ethical issues explored. Eur J Hum Genet 2010, 18:272-277.
11. Barr O., Skirton H. Informed decision making regarding 388 antenatal screening for fetal abnormality in the United Kingdom: a qualitative study of parents and professionals. Nurs Health Sci 2013, 15:318-325.
12. van den Berg M., Timmermans D.R.M., ten Kate L.P., van Vugt J.M.G., van der Wal G. Are pregnant women making informed choices about prenatal screening?. Genet Med 2005, 7:767-776.
13. Martin L., Hutton E.K., Gitsels-van der Wal J.T., Spelten E.R., Kuiper F., Pereboom M.T.R., et al. Prenatal counselling for congenital anomaly tests: an exploratory video-observational study about client-midwife communication. Midwifery 2014, 10.1016/j.midw.2014.05.004.
14. Michie S., Dormandy E., Marteau T.M. Informed choice: understanding knowledge in the context of screening uptake. Patient Educ Couns 2003, 50:247-253.
15. Roter D., Ellington L., Hamby Erby L., Larson S., Dudley W. The genetic counselling video project (GCVP). Am J Med Genet 2006, 142C:209-220.
16. Hack T.F., Degner L.F., Parker P.A. The communication goals and needs of cancer patients: a review. Psychooncology 2005, 14:831-845.
17. Martin L., Hutton E.K., Spelten E.R., Gitsels-van der Wal J.T., van Dulmen S. Midwives' views on appropriate antenatal counselling for congenital anomaly tests: do they match clients' preferences?. Midwifery 2014, 30:600-609.
18. Eva K.W., Regehr G. Self-assessment in the health professions: a reformulation and research agenda. Acad Med 2005, 80:46-54.
19. Aukes L.C., Geertsma J., Cohen-Schotanus J., Zwierstra R.P., Slaets J.P.J. The development of a scale to measure personal reflection in medical practice and education. Med Teach 2007, 29:177-182.
20. Epstein R.M., Siegel D.J., Silberman J. Self-monitoring in clinical practice: a challenge for medical educators. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2008, 28:5-13.
21. (last visit April 01.04.14). http://www.royalcollege.ca/portal/page/portal/rc/canmeds/framework.
22. Kessels R.P.C. Patients' memory for medical information. J R Soc Med 2003, 96:219-222.
23. Schinkel S., Schouten B.C., van Weert J.C., Are G.P. patients' needs being met? Unfulfilled information needs among native-Dutch and Turkish-Dutch patients. Patient Educ Couns 2013, 90:261-267.
24. Van Weert J.C.M., Bolle S., van Dulmen S., Jansen J. Older cancer patients' information and communication needs: what they want is what they get?. Patient Educ Couns 2013, 92:388-397.
25. Wiegers T.A. The quality of maternity care services as experienced by women in the Netherlands. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2009, 9:18.
26. Manniën J., Klomp T., Wiegers T., Pereboom M., Brug J., de Jonge A., et al. Evaluation of primary care midwifery in the Netherlands: design and rationale of a dynamic cohort study (DELIVER). BMC Health Serv Res 2012, 69.
27. Fletcher R.H., Fletcher S.W. Clinical epidemiology: the essentials 2005, 20-21. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore. fourth ed.
28. Spelten E.R., Martin L., Gitsels J.T., Pereboom M.T.R., Hutton E.K., van Dulmen S. Introducing video recording in primary care midwifery for research purposes: procedure, dataset, and use. Midwifery 2014, 10.1016/j.midw.2014.06.007.
29. Field A. Discovering statistics using SPSS 2009, 50-100. Sage Publishers, London, 434. 3rd ed.
30. Eisinga R., te Grotenhuis M., Pelzer B. The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown?. Int J Public Health 2013, 58:637-642.
31. (last visit 10.06.14). http://www.riasworks.com/.
32. Noldus L.P., Trienes R.J., Henderiksen A.H., Jansen H., Jansen R.G. The observer video-pro: new software for the collection, management, and presentation of time-structured data from videotapes and digital media files. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 2000, 32:197-206.
33. Landis J.R., Koch G.G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33:159-174.
34. RIVM National training requirements on counseling; 444 workgroup version 2. Adopted by the Coordinating Committee prenatal screening, December 7th, 2007 2007, RIVM, Bilthoven. http://www.rivm.nl/dsresource?objectid=rivmp:50890%26type=org%26disposition=inline.
35. Vanstone M., Kinsella E.A., Nisker J. Information-sharing to promote informed choice in prenatal screening in the spirit of the SOGC clinical practice guideline: a proposal for an alternative model. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2012, 34:269-275.
36. Bensing J. Doctor-patient communication and the quality of care. Soc Scr Med 1991, 32:1301-1310.
37. van Staveren R. Patiëntgericht communiceren; gids voor de medische praktijk 2011, 58-60. De Tijdstroom, Houten.
38. 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, Roterdam.
39. Health Council Act population screening on Down syndrome and nural tube defects 2007, Health Council, publication no. 2007/05WBO, Den Haag.
40. Oepkes P., Wieringa J. The right to know; the 20-weeks ultrasound investigation facilitates a conscious choice. Med Contact 2008, 31/32:1296-1297.