Jordanian pregnant women’s knowledge, expectations, andinformed choice of the second trimester ultrasound

r hatamleh, M. Sinclair, Y khader

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Background. Jordanian women’s knowledge, expectations and informed choice about the second trimester ultrasoundhave not been reported previously. To ensure that Jordanian women have an informed choice, it is essential to obtaininformation relating to their understanding and expectations of consenting to these routine procedures in pregnancy.Aim. To explore women’s knowledge and expectations of second trimester ultrasound, and to explore whether or notwomen received and retained sufficient information about the purpose, capability, limitations and drawbacks of secondtrimester ultrasound screening in terms of meeting the requirement of informed choice.Method. A cross-sectional survey was used to collect data through self-report questionnaires from women who attendedthe antenatal clinic at King Abdullah University Teaching Hospital in Jordan. The women’s consent was obtained.Findings. Findings from open-ended questions related to informed choice indicated that for the majority of women,their understanding about the diagnostic abilities, technical limitations and drawbacks of the second ultrasound scandid not meet the requirement of informed choice. A total of 75% of women thought ultrasound screening could detectblood disorders, while 82% thought that a normal ultrasound scan meant that their baby would be born without anydefects. Only 14.3% considered screening for birth defects as the reason for their 18-20 week scheduled ultrasound,and 11% were aware of fetal problems that could go undetected by ultrasound screening. This study proposes the development of a national standard for evidence-based information to be provided for women about the proposed‘routine anomaly scan’
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)87-93
JournalEvidence Based Midwifery
Volume10
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2012

Bibliographical note

Reference text: Asplin A, Wessel H, Marions L, Ohman SG. (2012) Pregnant women’s
experiences, needs, and preferences regarding information about
malformations detected by ultrasound scan. Sexual and Reproductive
Healthcare 3(2): 73-8.
Athanasiadis A, Polychronou P, Mikos T, Pantazis K, Assimakopoulos
E, Tzevelekis F, Bontis J. (2009) Women’s expectations and intention
to terminate pregnancy in case of abnormal findings at the second
trimester level II ultrasound scan. Fetal Diagnosis Therapy 25: 255-63.
Aune I, Moller A. (2012) ‘I want a choice, but I don’t want to decide’:
a qualitative study of pregnant women’s experiences regarding early
ultrasound risk assessment for chromosomal anomalies. Midwifery 28:
14-23.
Bashour H, Hafez R, Abdulsalam A. (2005) Syrian women’s perceptions
and experiences of ultrasound screening in pregnancy: implications for
antenatal policy. Reproductive Health Matters 13(25): 147-54.
Bindman S, Hosmer W, Caponigro M, Cunningham G. (2001) The
variability in the interpretation of prenatal diagnostic ultrasound.
Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynaecology 17: 826-32.
Ekelin M, Crang-Svalenius E, Dykes A. (2004) A qualitative study of
mothers’ and fathers’ experiences of routine ultrasound examination in
Sweden. Midwifery 20: 335-44.
Ekelin M, Crang-Svalenius E, Dykes A. (2008) Developing the PEER-U
scale to measure the parents’ expectations, experiences and reactions
to routine ultrasound examinations during pregnancy. Journal of
Reproductive and Infant Psychology 26(3): 211-28.
Enakpene C, Morhason-Bello I, Marinho A, Adedokun B, Kalejaiye A,
Sogo K, Gbadamosi S, Awoyinka B, Enabor O. (2009) Clients’ reasons
for prenatal ultrasonography in Ibadan, south west of Nigeria. BMC
Women’s Health 9(9): 12.
Enkin M, Keirse M, Renfrew M, Neilson J, Growther C, Duley L. (2000) A
guide to effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford University
Press: Oxford.
Gammeltoft T, Nguyen H. ( 2007) Fetal conditions and fatal decisions:
ethical dilemmas in ultrasound screening in Vietnam. Social Science and
Medicine 64(11): 2248-59.
Garcia J, Briker L, Henderson J, Martin M, Mugford M, Nielson J, Robert
T. (2002) Women’s views of pregnancy ultrasound: a systematic review.
Birth 29(4): 225-50.
Green JM, Hewison J, Bekker HL, Bryant LD, Cuckle HS. (2004)
Psychosocial aspects of genetic screening of pregnant women and
newborns: a systematic review. Health Technology Assessment 8(33):
1-121.
Hatamleh R. (2006) Birth technology: induction of birth and its impact
on maternal, fetal and neonatal mortality and morbidity in Northern
Jordan. University of Ulster: Northern Ireland.
Hatamleh R, Sinclair M, Kernohan G, Bunting B. (2008) Technological
childbirth in northern Jordan: descriptive findings from a prospective
cohort study. Evidence Based Midwifery 6(4): 130-5.
Kohut R, Dewey D, Love EJ. (2002) Women’s knowledge of prenatal
ultrasound and informed choice. Journal of Genetic Counseling 11(4):
265-76.
Larsen T, Nguyen T, Munk M, Svendsen L, Teisner L. (2000) Ultrasound
screening in the second trimester. The pregnant woman’s background
knowledge, expectations, experiences and acceptances. Ultrasound
Obstet Gynecol 15(5): 383-6.
Lalor J, Devane D. (2007) Information, knowledge and expectations of the
ultrasound scan. Midwifery 23(1): 13-22.
Mitchell L. (2004) Women’s experiences of unexpected ultrasound findings.
Journal of Midwifery and Women’s Health 49(3): 228-34.
Molander E, Alehagen S, Bertero C. (2010) Routine ultrasound examination
during pregnancy: a world of possibilities. Midwifery 26(1): 18-26.
NICE. (2008) Antenatal care: routine care for the healthy pregnant woman.
See: www.nice.org.uk/CG062 (accessed 8 August 2012).
Ranji A, Dykes A. (2010) Ultrasound screening during pregnancy in Iran:
womens’ expectations, experiences and number of scans. Midwifery
28(1): 24-9.
RCOG. (2000) Supplement to ultrasound screening for fetal abnormalities.
See: www.rcog.org.uk/womens-health/clinical-guidance/ultrasoundscreening#
app4 (accessed 8 August 2012).
Shaban I, Barclay L, Lock L, Homer C. (2012) Barriers to developing
midwifery as a primary healthcare strategy: a Jordanian study.
Midwifery 28(1): 106-11.
Sommerseth E, Sundby J. (2010) Women’s experiences when ultrasound
examinations give unexpected findings in the second trimester. Women
and Birth 23(3): 111-6.
Vanara F, Bergeretti F, Gaglioti P, Todros T. (2004) Economic evaluation
of ultrasound screening options for structural fetal malformations.
Ultrasound Obstetrics and Gynecology 24(6): 633-9.

Keywords

  • Antenatal ultrasound
  • knowledge
  • pregnant women
  • screening
  • survey
  • Middle East
  • expectations
  • informed
  • choice
  • evidence-based midwifery

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Jordanian pregnant women’s knowledge, expectations, andinformed choice of the second trimester ultrasound'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this