Women and Birth
Volume 23, Issue 3 , Pages 111-116 , September 2010

Women's experiences when ultrasound examinations give unexpected findings in the second trimester

  • Eva Sommerseth

      Affiliations

    • Faculty of Health Sciences, Vestfold University College, Postbox 2243, 3103 Tønsberg, Norway
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +47 33 03 12 68/908 95526 (Mobile); fax: +47 33 03 12 90.
    • ,
  • Johanne Sundby

      Affiliations

    • Institute of General Practice and Community Medicine, Section for International Health, University of Oslo, Postboks 1130 Blindern, N-0318 Oslo, Norway

Received 31 December 2008 ,Revised 16 January 2010 ,Accepted 20 January 2010.

References 

  1. Kvale S. Interviews: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage; 1996;
  2. Mitchell L. Women's experiences of unexpected ultrasound findings. Journal of Midwifery & Womens Health. 2004;49(May–June (3)):228–234
  3. Chitty LS, Kagan KO, Molina FS, Waters JJ, Nicolaides KH. Fetal nuchal translucency scan and early prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities by rapid aneuploidy screening: observational study. Br Med J. 2006;332(February (7539)):452–455
  4. Spencer K. Aneuploidy screening in the first trimester. Am J Med Genet Part C Sermin. 2007;145
  5. Angels Martinez-Zamora M, Borrell A, Borobio V, Gonce A, Perez M, Botet F, et al. False positives in the prenatal ultrasound screening of fetal structural anomalies. Prenatal Diagnosis. 2007;27
  6. Blaaka G, Eri TS. Doing midwifery between differnt belief systems. Midwifery. 2006;2006(8):1–9
  7. Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet. Lov om svangerskapsavbrudd Oslo: Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet,; 1975.
  8. Garcia J, Bricker L, Henderson J, Martin M-A, Mugford M, Nielson J, et al. Women's views of pregnancy ultrasound: a systematic review. Birth. 2002;29(December (4)):225–250
  9. Wertz DC, Fletcher JC. A critique of some feminist challanges to prenatal diagnosis. Journal of Women‘s Health. 1993;2(2):173–188
  10. Sandelowski M. Channel of desire: fetal ultrasonography in two use-contexts. Qual Health Res. 1994;4(3):262
  11. Green JM, Hewison J, Bekker HL, Bryant LD, Cuckle HS. Psychosocial aspects of genetic screening of pregnant women and newborns: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(33):
  12. Kleinveld J, Timmermans D, De Smit D, Alder H, Van der Wal G, Ten Kate LP. Does prenatal screening influence anxiety levels of pregnant women? A longitudinal randomized controlled trial. Prenatal Diagnosis. 2006;26(26):632–633
  13. Getz L, Kirkengen AL. Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: advancing technology, soft markers for fetal chromosomal aberrations, and unacknowledged ethical dilemmas. Social Sci Med. 2003;56(10):2045–2057
  14. Rothman BK. The tentative pregnancy. New York: Penguin Books; 1986;
  15. Nilsson K, Alton V, Axelsson O, Bokström H, Bul T, Crang-Svalenius E. Metoder för tidlig fosterdiagnostikk. En systematisk litteraturoversikt. Stocholm: SBU2006 Contract No.: 82.
  16. Ritchie K, Boynton J, Bradbury I, Foster L, Iqbal K, Kohli H. Routine ultrasound scanning before 24 week of pregnancy. Glasgow: NHS Quality Improwement Scotland2004 Contract No.: 5.
  17. McCoyd JLM. Pregnancy interrupted: Loss of a desired pregnancy after diagnosis of fetal anomaly. J Psychosomatic Obstetrics Gynecol. 2007;28(1):
  18. Voelker R. The business of baby pictures. JAMA. 2005;293(January (1)):
  19. Harris G, Connor L, Bisits A, Higginbotham N. “Seeing the baby”: pleasures and dilemmas of ultrasound technologies for primiparous Australian women. Med Anthropol Quar. 2004;18(March (1)):23–47
  20. Bygdeman M, Ahlenius A. Fosterskada allt vanligare orsak till abort efter 18:e veckan. Läkartidningen. 2005;102(8):557–559
  21. Mezei G, Papp C, Toth-Pal E, Beke A, Papp Z. Factors influencing parental decision making in prenatal diagnosis of sex chromosome aneuploidy. Obstetrics Gynecol. 2004;104(July (1)):94–101
  22. Davies V, Gledhill J, McFadyen A, Whitlow B, Economides D. Psychological outcome in women undergoing termination of pregnancy for ultrasound-detected fetal anomaly in the first and second trimesters: a pilot study. Ultrasound Obstetrics Gynecol. 2005;25(April (4)):389–392
  23. Boyukydis Zachariah CF, Treadwell MC, Dellaney-Black V, Boyes K, King M, Robinson T, et al. Womens‘s responses to ultrasound examinations during routine screens in obsteric clinic. J Ultrasound Med. 2006;25
  24. Kvale S. Det kvalitative forskningsintervju. Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag AS; 2001.
  25. Englesiden. 2003 [10.09.04]; Available from: www.englesiden.com.
  26. Bengtsson J. Sammenflatningar. Husserl og Merleau-Pontys fenomenologi. Gøteborg: Daidalos; 1993.
  27. Merleau-Ponty M. Kroppens fenomenologi. Oslo: Pax; 1994.
  28. Van den Berg M, Timmermans DRM, Kleinveld JH, Garcia E, Van Vugt JMG, Van der Wal G. Accepting or declining the offer of prenatal screening for congenital defects: test uptake and women's reasons. Prenatal Diagnosis. 2005;25(January (1)):84–90
  29. Davies V, et al. Psychological outcome in women undergoing termination of pregnancy for ultrasound-detected fetal anomaly in the first and second trimesters: a pilot study. Ultrasound Obstetrics Gynecol. 2005;25(April (4)):389–392
  30. Salvesen K, Oyen L, Schmidt N, Malt U, Eik-Nes S. Comparison of long-term psychological responses of women after pregnancy termination due to fetal anomalies and after perinatal loss. Ultrasound Obstetrics Gynecol. 1997;9(2):80–85
  31. Ekelin M, Crang-Svalenius E, Dykes AK. Midwives’ attitudes to and knowledge about a newly introduced foetal screening method. Scandinavian J Caring Sci. 2004;18(3):287–293
  32. Offerdal K. Improved ultrasound imaging of the fetus and its consequences for severe and less anomalies. Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and Technology; 2008;
  33. Sommerseth E, Sundby J. Ultrasound screening and bodily expirience when fetal abnormality is indicated. Nordic J Nurs Res. 2008;2(3):159–163
  34. Schmidt L. Psykosociale konsekvenser af infertilitet og behandling. København: FADL; 1996;
  35. Heyman B, Hundt G, Sandall J. On being at a higher risk: a qualitative study of prenatal screening for chromosomal anomalies. Social Sci Med. 2007;62:2360–2372
  36. Smith R, Titmarsh S, Overton T. Improving pasient‘s knowledge of the fetal anomaly scan. Ultrasound Obstetrics Gynecol. 2004;24
  37. Whynes DK. Receipt of information and women's attitudes towards ultrasound scanning during pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstetrics Gynecol. 2002;19(January (1)):7–12
  38. Nicolaides KH, Chervenak FA, McCullough LB, Avgidou K, Papageorghiou A. Evidence-based obstetric ethics and informed decision-making by pregnant women about invasive diagnosis after first-trimester assessment of risk for trisomy 21. Am J Obstetrics Gynecol. 2005;193(2):322–326
  39. Dyregrov K. Strategies of professional assistance after traumatic deaths: empowerment or disempowerment?. Scandinavian J Psychol. 2004;45(April (2)):181–189
  40. Hughes P, Turton P, Hopper E, Evans CDH. Assessment of guidelines for good practice in psychosocial care of mothers after stillbirth: a cohort study. Lancet. 2002;360(9327):114–118
  41. Hellesnes J. Sosialisering og teknokrati: Ein sosialfilosofisk studie med særleg vekt på pedagogikkens problem. Oslo,: Gyldendal; 1975.
  42. Chervenak FA, McCullough LB, Davis J, NYPH, Gross S. Enhancing patient autonomy with risk assessment and invasive diagnosis: an ethical solution to a clinical challenge Genetics in medicine. 2008.

PII: S1871-5192(10)00016-8

doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2010.01.001

Women and Birth
Volume 23, Issue 3 , Pages 111-116 , September 2010

Article Tools