Preferences for a third-trimester ultrasound scan in a low-risk obstetric population: A discrete choice experiment

Health Expectations

Volumn 18, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 892-903

  Lynn, Fiona A ^a   Crealey, Grainne E ^b   Alderdice, Fiona A ^a   Mcelnay, James C ^a  

^a QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

^b ROYAL GROUP OF HOSPITALS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Discrete choice experiment; Pregnancy; Ultrasound scan; Women's preferences

Indexed keywords

ADULT; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; FETUS ECHOGRAPHY; HOSPITAL; HUMAN; IRELAND; OBSTETRICS; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PREGNANCY; RISK FACTOR; THIRD TRIMESTER PREGNANCY;

ADULT; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HOSPITALS, MATERNITY; HUMANS; IRELAND; OBSTETRICS; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY TRIMESTER, THIRD; RISK FACTORS; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, PRENATAL;

EID: 84942295605     PISSN: 13696513     EISSN: 13697625     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/hex.12062     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Figueras F, Gardosi J. Intrauterine growth restriction: new concepts in antenatal surveillance, diagnosis, and management. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2011; 204: 288-300.
2. Bricker L, Mahsud-Dornan S, Dornan JC. Detection of foetal growth restriction using third trimester ultrasound. Best Practice & Research. Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 2009; 23: 833-844.
3. McKenna D, Dornan JC. Who's looking for the high-risk fetus in the low-risk mother? The Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, 2005; 7: 50-51.
4. Georgsson Ohman S, Waldenstrom U. Second-trimester routine ultrasound screening: expectations and experiences in a nationwide Swedish sample. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2008; 32: 15-22.
5. Lalor JG, Devane D. Information, knowledge and expectations of the routine ultrasound scan. Midwifery, 2007; 23: 13-22.
6. Gudex C, Nielson BL, Madsen M. Why women want prenatal ultrasound in normal pregnancy. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2006; 27: 145-150.
7. Garcia J, Bricker L, Henderson J et al. Women's views of pregnancy ultrasound: a systematic review. Birth, 2002; 29: 225-250.
8. Drife J. Can we reduce perinatal mortality in the UK? Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2008; 3: 1-3.
9. RCOG. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Guideline No. 31: The Investigation and Management of the Small-for-Gestational-Age Fetus. London, UK: RCOG, 2002.
10. Gilbert WM, Danielsen B. Pregnancy outcomes associated with intrauterine growth restriction. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2003; 188: 1596-1601.
11. Harris G, Connor L, Bisits A, Higginbotham N. Seeing the baby: pleasures and dilemmas of ultrasound technologies for primiparous Australian women. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 2004; 18: 23-47.
12. Resnik R. Intrauterine growth restriction. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2002; 99: 490-496.
13. Bricker L, Neilson JP, Dowswell T. Routine Ultrasound in Late Pregnancy (After 24 weeks' Gestation). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, The Cochrane Library, 4, 2008.
14. Dolan P, Cookson R, Ferguson B. Effect of discussion and deliberation on the public's views of priority setting in health care: focus group study. BMJ, 2009; 318: 916-919.
15. Department of Health. Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS. UK: DoH, 2010.
16. Department of Health. Liberating the NHS: Legislative Framework and Next Steps. UK: DoH, 2010.
17. Department of Health. Maternity Matters: Choice, Access and Continuity of Care in a Safe Service. UK: DoH, 2007.
18. Bricker L, Garcia J, Henderson J et al. Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: a systematic review of the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and women's views. Health Technology Assessment, 2000; 4: 1-205.
19. Ryan M, Scott D, Reeves C. Eliciting public preferences for health care: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technology Assessment, 2001; 5: 1-194.
20. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making. A user's guide. Pharmacoeconomics, 2008; 26: 661-677.
21. Deverill M, Lancsar E, Snaith VBA, Robson SC. Antenatal care for first time mothers-a discrete choice experiment of women's views on alternative packages of care. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, 2010; 151: 33-37.
22. Bishop AJ, Marteau TM, Armstrong D et al. Women and health care professionals' preferences for Down's Syndrome screening tests: a conjoint analysis study. BJOG, 2004; 111: 775-779.
23. Pitchforth E, Watson V, Tucker J et al. Models of intrapartum care and women's trade-offs in remote and rural Scotland: a mixed-methods study. BJOG, 2007; 115: 560-569.
24. National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health. Antenatal Care: Routine Care for the Healthy Pregnant Woman. London, UK: RCOG Press, 2008.
25. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
26. Ekelin M, Crang-Svalenius E, Dykes A-K. A qualitative study of mothers' and fathers' experiences of routine ultrasound examination in Sweden. Midwifery, 2004; 20: 335-344.
27. Confidential Enquiry into Stillbirths and Deaths in Infancy. Eighth Annual Report. London, UK: CESDI, 2001.
28. Skovron ML, Berkowitz GS, Lapinski RH, Kim JM, Chitkara U. Evaluation of early third-trimester ultrasound screening for intrauterine growth retardation. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, 1991; 10: 153-159.
29. Henderson J, Bricker L, Roberts T, Mugford M, Garcia J, Neilson J. British National Health Service's and women's costs of antenatal ultrasound screening and follow-up tests. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2002; 20: 154-162.
30. SPSS Inc. SPSS® for Windows 13.0. Chicago, IL, USA: SPSS Inc., 2005.
31. Northern Ireland Statistics & Research Agency. Northern Ireland Multiple Deprivation Measure 2005. Belfast, NI: NISRA, 2005.
32. Brisch KH, Munz D, Bemmerer-Mayer K, Kachele H, Terinde R, Kreienberg R. Ultrasound scanning for diagnosis of foetal abnormality and maternal anxieties in a longitudinal perspective. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 2002; 20: 223-235.
33. Ayers S, Pickering AD. Women's expectations and experience of birth. Psychology & Health, 2005; 20: 79-92.
34. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System Phase 5 (2005-2008) Core Questionnaire. Atlanta, GA: Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/prams/PDF/Phase5_CoreQuestions.pdf, accessed 17 April 2012.
35. Yali AM, Lobel M. Coping and distress in pregnancy: an investigation of medically high risk women. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1999; 20: 39-52.
36. Alderdice F, Lynn F, Lobel M. A review and psychometric evaluation of pregnancy-specific stress measures. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2012; 33: 62-77.
37. Greene WH. NLOGIT Version 3.0. New York: Econometric Software Inc., 2002.
38. Northern Ireland Statistics & Research Agency. Registrar General Annual Report 2006: Section 3 Births. Belfast, NI: NISRA, 2006.
39. San Miguel F, Ryan M, Amaya-Amaya M. 'Irrational' stated preferences: a quantitative and qualitative investigation. Health Economics, 2005; 14: 307-322.
40. Ryan M, Watson V, Entwistle V. Rationalising the 'irrational': a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses. Health Economics, 2008; 18: 321-326.
41. McIntosh E. Using discrete choice experiments within a cost-benefit analysis framework: some considerations. Pharmacoeconomics, 2006; 24: 855-868.
42. Slothuus Skjoldborg U, Gyrd-Hansen D. Conjoint analysis. The cost variable: an Achilles' heel? Health Economics, 2003; 12: 479-491.
43. Ryan M, Ratcliffe J. Some issues in the application of closed-ended willingness to pay studies to valuing health goods: an application to antenatal care in Scotland. Applied Economics, 2000; 32: 643-651.
44. Bijlenga D, Bonse GJ, Birnie E. Eliciting willingness to pay in obstetrics: comparing a direct and an indirect valuation method for complex health outcomes. Health Economics, 2011; 20: 1392-1406.
45. Shackley P, Donaldson C. Willingness to pay for publicly-financed health care: how should we use the numbers? Applied Economics, 2000; 32: 2015-2021.
46. Flynn TN. Using conjoint analysis and choice experiments to estimate QALY values: issues to consider. Pharmacoeconomics, 2010; 28: 711-722.
47. Ungar WJ. Challenges in health state valuation in paediatric economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics, 2011; 29: 641-652.
48. Berwick DM, Weinstein MC. What do patients value? Willingness to pay for ultrasound in normal pregnancy. Medical Care, 1985; 23: 881-893.