Experiences of pregnant women with a third trimester routine ultrasound - a qualitative study

Myrte Westerneng, Mariëlle Diepeveen, Anke B Witteveen, Marjan J Westerman, Henriette E van der Horst, Anneloes L van Baar, Ank de Jonge, Myrte Westerneng, Mariëlle Diepeveen, Anke B Witteveen, Marjan J Westerman, Henriette E van der Horst, Anneloes L van Baar, Ank de Jonge

Abstract

Background: Studies showed that pregnant women generally value routine ultrasounds in the first two trimesters because these provide reassurance and a chance to see their unborn baby. This, in turn, might help to decrease maternal anxiety levels and increase the bond with the baby. However, it is unclear whether pregnant women hold the same positive views about a third trimester routine ultrasound, which is increasingly being used in the Netherlands as a screening tool to monitor fetal growth. The aim of this study was to explore pregnant women's experiences with a third trimester routine ultrasound.

Methods: We held semi-structured interviews with fifteen low-risk pregnant women who received a third trimester routine ultrasound in the context of the Dutch IUGR RIsk Selection (IRIS) study. The IRIS study is a nationwide cluster randomized controlled trial carried out among more than 13,000 women to examine the effectiveness of a third trimester routine ultrasound to monitor fetal growth. For the interviews, participants were purposively selected based on parity, age, ethnicity, and educational level. We performed thematic content analysis using MAXQDA.

Results: Most pregnant women appreciated a third trimester routine ultrasound because it provided them confirmation that their baby was fine and an extra opportunity to see their baby. At the same time they expressed that they already felt confident about the health of their baby, and did not feel that their bond with their baby had increased after the third trimester ultrasound. Women also reported that they were getting used to routine ultrasounds throughout their pregnancy, and that this increased their need for another one.

Conclusions: Pregnant women seem to appreciate a third trimester routine ultrasound, but it does not seem to reduce anxiety or to improve bonding with their baby. Women's appreciation of a third trimester routine ultrasound might arise from getting used to routine ultrasounds throughout pregnancy. We recommend to examine the psychological impact of third trimester routine ultrasounds in future studies. Results should be taken into consideration when balancing the gains, which are as yet not clear, of introducing a third trimester routine ultrasound against unwanted side effects and costs.

Keywords: Maternal bonding; Pregnancy; Pregnancy anxiety; Primary care; Qualitative studies; Ultrasound.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

    1. Garcia J, Bricker L, Henderson J, Martin M, Mugford M, Nielson J, et al. Women’s views of pregnancy ultrasound: a systematic review. Birth. 2002;29(4):225–250. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-536X.2002.00198.x.
    1. EUROCAT. EUROCAT Special Report . Prenatal Screening Policies in Europe 2010. EUROCAT Central Registry, University of Ulster. 2010.
    1. Allyse M, Minear MA, Berson E, Sridhar S, Rote M, Hung A, et al. Non-invasive prenatal testing: a review of international implementation and challenges. Int J Women's Health. 2015;7:113–126. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S67124.
    1. Gitsels-van der Wal J, Verhoeven PS, Mannien J, Martin L, Reinders HS, Spelten E, et al. Factors affecting the uptake of prenatal screening tests for congenital anomalies; a multicentre prospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14(1):264. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-264.
    1. Ward P. Down’s syndrome screening in England. London: NHS Fetal Anomaly Screening Programme. Committe UNS; 2011.
    1. Ekelund CK, Petersen OB, Skibsted L, Kjaergaard S, Vogel I, Tabor A. First-trimester screening for trisomy 21 in Denmark: implications for detection and birth rates of trisomy 18 and trisomy 13. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38(2):140–144. doi: 10.1002/uog.8929.
    1. NHS Fetal Anomaly Screening Programme. Annual Report 2011–2012. Available at [] Accessed on June 19 2019.
    1. Gezondheidsraad . Prenatale screening: Downsyndroom, neuralebuisdefecten, routine-echoscopie. Den Haag: Gezondheidsraad. Publicatie nr 11; 2001.
    1. Bricker L, Medley N, Pratt JJ. Routine ultrasound in late pregnancy (after 24 weeks’ gestation) Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;6:CD001451.
    1. Edvardsson K, Mogren I, Lalos A, Persson M, Small R. A routine tool with far-reaching influence: Australian midwives’ views on the use of ultrasound during pregnancy. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15(1):195. doi: 10.1186/s12884-015-0632-y.
    1. Burton-Jeangros C. Surveillance of risks in everyday life: the agency of pregnant women and its limitations. Soc Theory Heal. 2011;9(4):419–436. doi: 10.1057/sth.2011.15.
    1. Hammer RP, Burton-Jeangros C. Tensions around risks in pregnancy: a typology of women’s experiences of surveillance medicine. Soc Sci Med. 2013;93:55–63. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.05.033.
    1. French S. Perceptions of routine nuchal translucency screening. Br J Midwifery. 2000;8(10):632–638. doi: 10.12968/bjom.2000.8.10.8064.
    1. Larsen T, Nguyen TH, Munk M, Svendsen L, Teisner L. Ultrasound screening in the 2nd trimester. The pregnant woman’s background knowledge, expectations, experiences and acceptances. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2000;15(5):383–386.
    1. Crang Svalenius E, Dykes A-K, Jörgensen C. Organized routine ultrasound in the second trimester-one hundred Womens’ experiences. J Matern Investig. 1996;6(4):219–222.
    1. Eurenius K, Axelsson O, Gällstedt-Fransson I, Sjöden P. Perception of information, expectations and experiences among women and their partners attending a second-trimester routine ultrasound scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1997;9(2):86–90. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1997.09020086.x.
    1. Clement S, Wilson J, Sikorski J. Women’s experiences of antenatal ultrasound scans. In: Clement S, editor. Psychological perspectives on pregnancy and childbirth. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1998. pp. 7–24.
    1. Ekelin M, Crang-Svalenius E, Dykes AK. A qualitative study of mothers’ and fathers’ experiences of routine ultrasound examination in Sweden. Midwifery. 2004;20(4):335–344. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2004.02.001.
    1. Alhusen JL. A literature update on maternal-fetal attachment. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2008;37(3):315–328. doi: 10.1111/j.1552-6909.2008.00241.x.
    1. Yarcheski A, Mahon NE, Yarcheski TJ, Hanks MM, Cannella BL. A meta-analytic study of predictors of maternal-fetal attachment. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009;46(5):708–715. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.10.013.
    1. Nabhan AF, Faris MA. High feedback versus low feedback of prenatal ultrasound for reducing maternal anxiety and improving maternal health behaviour in pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;4:CD007208.
    1. Baillie C, Smith J, Hewison J, Mason G. Ultrasound screening for chromosomal abnormality: Women’s reactions to false positive results. Br J Health Psychol. 2000;5(4):377–394. doi: 10.1348/135910700168991.
    1. Harpel TS. Fear of the unknown: ultrasound and anxiety about fetal health. Health. 2008;12(3):295–312. doi: 10.1177/1363459308090050.
    1. Thomas GM, Roberts J, Griffiths FE. Ultrasound as a technology of reassurance? How pregnant women and health care professionals articulate ultrasound reassurance and its limitations. Sociol Health Illn. 2017;39(6):893–907. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.12554.
    1. Henrichs J, Verfaille V, Viester L, Westerneng M, Molewijk B, Franx A, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of routine third trimester ultrasound screening for intrauterine growth restriction: study protocol of a nationwide stepped wedge cluster-randomized trial in the Netherlands (the IRIS study) BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16(1):310. doi: 10.1186/s12884-016-1104-8.
    1. Glaser BG, Strauss AL. Discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. New York: Routledge; 2017.
    1. Boukydis CF, Treadwell MC, Delaney-Black V, Boyes K, King M, Robinson T, et al. Women’s responses to ultrasound examinations during routine screens in an obstetric clinic. J Ultrasound Med. 2006;25(6):721–728. doi: 10.7863/jum.2006.25.6.721.
    1. Huizink AC, Mulder EJH, de Medina PGR, Visser GHA, Buitelaar JK. Is pregnancy anxiety a distinctive syndrome? Early Hum Dev. 2004;79(2):81–91. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2004.04.014.
    1. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications; 1998.
    1. Molander E, Alehagen S, Berterö CM. Routine ultrasound examination during pregnancy: a world of possibilities. Midwifery. 2010;26(1):18–26. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2008.04.008.
    1. Bricker L, Garcia J, Henderson J, Mugford M, Neilson J, Roberts T, et al. Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: a systematic review of the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and women’s views. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4(16):i. doi: 10.3310/hta4160.
    1. Gregg R. “ Choice” as a double-edged sword: information, guilt and mother-blaming in a high-tech age. Women Health. 1993;20(3):53–73. doi: 10.1300/J013v20n03_04.
    1. Ockleford E, Berryman J, Hsu R. Do women understand ultrasound prenatal screening for foetal abnormality? Br J Midwifery. 2003;11(7):445–449. doi: 10.12968/bjom.2003.11.7.11538.
    1. OECD (2017), Health spending (indicator). Doi: 10.1787/8643de7e-en available at [] accessed on June 19 2019.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir