IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v69y2009i2p274-277.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How do prospective parents who decline prenatal screening account for their decision? A qualitative study

Author

Listed:
  • Gottfre[eth]sdóttir, Helga
  • Björnsdóttir, Kristín
  • Sandall, Jane

Abstract

Despite the aim of nuchal translucency screening to enhance reproductive choices among prospective parents, research on the experience of those who choose to decline this screening has been fairly limited. The objective of this study is to gain an understanding of how parents who decline screening account for their decision in a setting where screening for Down's syndrome in early pregnancy is the norm. The majority of research on prenatal screening choices has been conducted retrospectively; there has been very little research that has explored decision making on a prospective basis and that has included both parents. In order to study this question, a purposive sample of ten couples who had decided to decline screening was recruited from four health care centres in Iceland. Data were gathered in semi-structured interviews conducted with each participant twice during the pregnancy (at 7-12 weeks pregnant and at 12-24 weeks pregnant), for a total of 40 interviews. We find that the decision to decline screening is largely determined by what prospective parents bring with them to the pregnancy, i.e., their personal philosophy of Down's syndrome and the high value they place on maintaining the complexity of life. The test is also considered unreliable by some of the participants. These findings have implications for those who are involved in formulating and providing antenatal screening policies and practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Gottfre[eth]sdóttir, Helga & Björnsdóttir, Kristín & Sandall, Jane, 2009. "How do prospective parents who decline prenatal screening account for their decision? A qualitative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 274-277, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:69:y:2009:i:2:p:274-277
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(09)00274-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bryant, Louise D. & Green, Josephine M. & Hewison, Jenny, 2006. "Understandings of Down's syndrome: A Q methodological investigation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(5), pages 1188-1200, September.
    2. Markens, Susan & Browner, C. H. & Press, Nancy, 1999. "'Because of the risks': how US pregnant women account for refusing prenatal screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 359-369, August.
    3. García, Elisa & Timmermans, Danielle R.M. & van Leeuwen, Evert, 2008. "The impact of ethical beliefs on decisions about prenatal screening tests: Searching for justification," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 753-764, February.
    4. Santalahti, Päivi & Hemminki, Elina & Latikka, Anne-Maria & Ryynänen, Markku, 1998. "Women's decision-making in prenatal screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1067-1076, April.
    5. Heyman, Bob & Hundt, Gillian & Sandall, Jane & Spencer, Kevin & Williams, Clare & Grellier, Rachel & Pitson, Laura, 2006. "On being at higher risk: A qualitative study of prenatal screening for chromosomal anomalies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(10), pages 2360-2372, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Reid, Bernie & Sinclair, Marlene & Barr, Owen & Dobbs, Frank & Crealey, Grainne, 2009. "A meta-synthesis of pregnant women's decision-making processes with regard to antenatal screening for Down syndrome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 1561-1573, December.
    2. Di Giacomo, Marina & Piacenza, Massimiliano & Siciliani, Luigi & Turati, Gilberto, 2022. "The effect of co-payments on the take-up of prenatal tests," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    3. Raspberry, Kelly Amanda & Skinner, Debra, 2011. "Negotiating desires and options: How mothers who carry the fragile X gene experience reproductive decisions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(6), pages 992-998, March.
    4. Hammer, Raphaël P. & Burton-Jeangros, Claudine, 2013. "Tensions around risks in pregnancy: A typology of women's experiences of surveillance medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 55-63.
    5. Bryant, Louise D. & Ahmed, Shenaz & Ahmed, Mushtaq & Jafri, Hussain & Raashid, Yasmin, 2011. "'All is done by Allah'. Understandings of Down syndrome and prenatal testing in Pakistan," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(8), pages 1393-1399, April.
    6. García, Elisa & Timmermans, Danielle R.M. & van Leeuwen, Evert, 2008. "The impact of ethical beliefs on decisions about prenatal screening tests: Searching for justification," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 753-764, February.
    7. Ahmed, Shenaz & Bryant, Louise D. & Tizro, Zahra & Shickle, Darren, 2012. "Interpretations of informed choice in antenatal screening: A cross-cultural, Q-methodology study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(7), pages 997-1004.
    8. Kissling, Alexandra, 2022. "“Thinking with my dad brain, not my man brain”: Understanding Men's and Women's sterilization risk narratives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    9. Ville, Isabelle & Mirlesse, Véronique, 2015. "Prenatal diagnosis: From policy to practice. Two distinct ways of managing prognostic uncertainty and anticipating disability in Brazil and in France," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 19-26.
    10. Lehoux, Pascale & Daudelin, Genevieve & Demers-Payette, Olivier & Boivin, Antoine, 2009. "Fostering deliberations about health innovation: What do we want to know from publics?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2002-2009, June.
    11. Ivry, Tsipy & Teman, Elly & Frumkin, Ayala, 2011. "God-sent ordeals and their discontents: Ultra-orthodox Jewish women negotiate prenatal testing," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(9), pages 1527-1533, May.
    12. Shaw, Alison, 2011. "Risk and reproductive decisions: British Pakistani couples' responses to genetic counselling," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 111-120, July.
    13. Armstrong, Natalie & Murphy, Elizabeth, 2008. "Weaving meaning? An exploration of the interplay between lay and professional understandings of cervical cancer risk," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(7), pages 1074-1082, October.
    14. Shostak, Sara & Zarhin, Dana & Ottman, Ruth, 2011. "What's at stake? Genetic information from the perspective of people with epilepsy and their family members," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(5), pages 645-654, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:69:y:2009:i:2:p:274-277. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.