Author:
Lust Eline E.R.,Bronsgeest Kim,Henneman Lidewij,Crombag Neeltje,Bilardo Caterina M.,van Vliet-Lachotzki Elsbeth H.,Galjaard Robert-Jan H.,Sikkel Esther,Haak Monique C.,Bekker Mireille N.
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Since 2007 all pregnant women in the Netherlands are offered the second-trimester anomaly scan (SAS) in a nationwide prenatal screening program. This study aims to assess the level of informed choice of women opting for the SAS and to evaluate the presence of routinization 16 years after its implementation. It further explores decisional conflict and women’s decision making.
Methods
This prospective national survey study consisted of an online questionnaire which was completed after prenatal counseling and before undergoing the SAS. Informed choice was measured by the adapted multidimensional measure of informed choice (MMIC) and was defined in case women were classified as value-consistent, if their decision for the SAS was deliberated and made with sufficient knowledge.
Results
A total of 894/1167 (76.6%) women completed the questionnaire. Overall, 54.8% made an informed choice, 89.6% had good knowledge, 59.8% had deliberated their choice and 92.7% held a positive attitude towards the SAS. Women with low educational attainment (p=0.004) or respondents of non-Western descent (p=0.038) were less likely to make an informed choice. Decisional conflict was low, with a significantly lower decisional conflict score in women that made an informed choice (p<0.001). Most respondents (97.9%) did not perceive pressure to undergo the SAS.
Conclusions
Our study showed a relatively low rate of informed choice for the SAS, due to absence of deliberation. Therefore, some routinization seem to be present in the Netherlands. However, most women had sufficient knowledge, did not perceive pressure and experienced low decisional conflict.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Reference43 articles.
1. Edwards L, Hui L. First and second trimester screening for fetal structural anomalies. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018;23(2):102–11.
2. Carmen Prodan N, Hoopmann M, Jonaityte G, Oliver Kagan K. How to do a second trimester anomaly scan. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2023;307(4):1285–90.
3. RIVM. De 13 wekenecho en de 20 wekenecho [updated 01-08-2021. Available from: https://www.pns.nl/documenten/folder-de_13_wekenecho_en_de_20_wekenecho.
4. Quaresima P, Fesslova V, Farina A, Kagan KO, Candiani M, Morelli M, et al. How to do a fetal cardiac scan. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2023;307(4):1269–76.
5. RIVM. Professionalsmonitor 2021 screeningsprogramma down-, edwards- en patausyndroom en het SEO. Available from: https://www.pns.nl/documenten/professionalsmonitor-2021-screeningsprogramma-down-edwards-en-patausyndroom-en-seo.