IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v26y2017i13-14p1869-1877.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Women's knowledge and use of prenatal screening tests

Author

Listed:
  • Memnun Seven
  • Aygül Akyüz
  • Kafiye Eroglu
  • Sandra Daack‐Hirsch
  • Heather Skirton

Abstract

Aims and objectives The aim of the study was to determine the rate of use of prenatal screening tests and the factors affecting the decision to have a prenatal screening test in pregnant women in Turkey. Background Prenatal genetic screening as an optional service is commonly used to determine a level of risk for genetic conditions in the foetus. Design A quantitative cross‐sectional survey. Methods Pregnant women (n = 274) who sought prenatal care from one hospital in Turkey were recruited and asked to complete questionnaires that were developed by the researchers. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyse the data. Results Almost half (44·2) % of the women were primiparas, and the majority (97·8%) were in the third trimester of pregnancy. Only 36·1% of the women reported that they had prenatal screening by either the double test or triple test. Women had a low level of knowledge regarding prenatal screening: the mean knowledge score was 3·43 ± 3·21 of a possible score of 10. Having consanguineous marriage, a history of spontaneous abortion, a child with genetic disorder, multiparity or a longer marriage duration were positively correlated with accepting a prenatal screening test. Conclusions This study has provided baseline data on the uptake and reasons for accepting or declining a prenatal screening in a cohort of Turkish women. There is evidence to suggest that more education is needed to improve knowledge and provide comprehensive nursing care to promote informed consent in this context. Relevance to clinical practice Perinatal nurses are ideally situated to inform pregnant women about prenatal screening tests to improve access to healthcare services and to ensure informed decisions are made by pregnant women and their partners.

Suggested Citation

  • Memnun Seven & Aygül Akyüz & Kafiye Eroglu & Sandra Daack‐Hirsch & Heather Skirton, 2017. "Women's knowledge and use of prenatal screening tests," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(13-14), pages 1869-1877, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:26:y:2017:i:13-14:p:1869-1877
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13494
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13494
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.13494?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Owen Barr & Heather Skirton, 2013. "Informed decision making regarding antenatal screening for fetal abnormality in the United Kingdom: A qualitative study of parents and professionals," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 318-325, September.
    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. Memnun Seven & Kafiye Eroglu & Aygül Akyüz & Charlotta Ingvoldstad, 2017. "Educational needs of nurses to provide genetic services in prenatal care: A cross‐sectional study from Turkey," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 294-300, September.
    2. Kyoko Murakami & Sue Turale & Heather Skirton & Faye Doris & Kumiko Tsujino & Misae Ito & Saeko Kutsunugi, 2016. "Experiences regarding maternal age‐specific risks and prenatal testing of women of advanced maternal age in Japan," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 8-14, March.
    3. Craig Lockwood & Raluca Sfetcu, 2020. "Ethics in quality improvement: Reimagining the clinician role," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 483-485, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:jocnur:v:26:y:2017:i:13-14:p:1869-1877. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    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.