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

r hatamleh, M. Sinclair, Y khader

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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’
LanguageEnglish
Pages87-93
JournalEvidence Based Midwifery
Volume10
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2012

Fingerprint

Second Pregnancy Trimester
Pregnant Women
Jordan
Teaching Hospitals
Self Report
Cross-Sectional Studies
Pregnancy

Keywords

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

Cite this

@article{5bc6738cef664833afa287c46ba851e8,
title = "Jordanian pregnant women’s knowledge, expectations, andinformed choice of the second trimester ultrasound",
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’",
keywords = "Antenatal ultrasound, knowledge, pregnant women, screening, survey, Middle East, expectations, informed, choice, evidence-based midwifery",
author = "r hatamleh and M. Sinclair and Y khader",
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.",
year = "2012",
month = "9",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "87--93",
journal = "Evidence Based Midwifery",
issn = "1479-4489",
number = "3",

}

Jordanian pregnant women’s knowledge, expectations, andinformed choice of the second trimester ultrasound. / hatamleh, r; Sinclair, M.; khader, Y.

In: Evidence Based Midwifery, Vol. 10, No. 3, 09.2012, p. 87-93.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Jordanian pregnant women’s knowledge, expectations, andinformed choice of the second trimester ultrasound

AU - hatamleh, r

AU - Sinclair, M.

AU - khader, Y

N1 - 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.

PY - 2012/9

Y1 - 2012/9

N2 - 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’

AB - 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’

KW - Antenatal ultrasound

KW - knowledge

KW - pregnant women

KW - screening

KW - survey

KW - Middle East

KW - expectations

KW - informed

KW - choice

KW - evidence-based midwifery

M3 - Article

VL - 10

SP - 87

EP - 93

JO - Evidence Based Midwifery

T2 - Evidence Based Midwifery

JF - Evidence Based Midwifery

SN - 1479-4489

IS - 3

ER -