IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v63y2006i5p1188-1200.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understandings of Down's syndrome: A Q methodological investigation

Author

Listed:
  • Bryant, Louise D.
  • Green, Josephine M.
  • Hewison, Jenny

Abstract

Down's syndrome has been, and continues to be, a central focus of prenatal testing technology. However, there has been surprisingly little examination of how parental understandings of the condition relate to prenatal testing choices. This study, carried out at the University of Leeds, uses Q methodology to identify 'competing equivalent stories' of Down's syndrome and to highlight the shared and distinct themes within these stories. Seventy-six people were selected as being likely to represent a diverse range of views about Down's syndrome, approximately half of whom had some known experience or expertise related either to the condition or to prenatal testing. The participants were asked to Q sort 50 propositions about Down's syndrome that were selected to reflect different views about the condition in terms of its impact on the affected person, on families with an affected child, and on society. Using Principal Components Analysis, five statistically independent factors were extracted that reflected a range of views towards, and experiences of, people with Down's syndrome. Despite a virtual consensus about the rights of existing people with Down's syndrome to healthcare, an education, and inclusion in their community, there were significant differences in how participants believed they personally would adjust to an affected child. Furthermore, whether or not people with Down's syndrome were seen to be within 'a continuum of normality' sheds light on how views about the condition may be linked to views about prenatal testing and termination of pregnancy. The study demonstrates that people hold complex and sometimes seemingly contradictory views about Down's syndrome, and that these are likely to influence their prenatal testing decisions. Antenatal settings currently provide little opportunity for people to discuss and explore their beliefs about disability. It is argued that this may affect the ability of some individuals to make decisions that are informed by their own views and values.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:63:y:2006:i:5:p:1188-1200
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(06)00135-3
    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. Raz, Aviad, 2004. ""Important to test, important to support": attitudes toward disability rights and prenatal diagnosis among leaders of support groups for genetic disorders in Israel," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 59(9), pages 1857-1866, November.
    2. Eccleston, Chris & De C. Williams, Amanda C. & Rogers, Wendy Stainton, 1997. "Patients' and professionals' understandings of the causes of chronic pain: Blame, responsibility and identity protection," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(5), pages 699-709, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    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. Rosa Esteve & Alicia Eva López-Martínez & Gema Teresa Ruíz-Párraga & Elena Rocío Serrano-Ibáñez & Carmen Ramírez-Maestre, 2020. "Pain Acceptance and Pain-Related Disability Predict Healthcare Utilization and Medication Intake in Patients with Non-Specific Chronic Spinal Pain," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-12, July.
    2. Baker, Rachel Mairi, 2006. "Economic rationality and health and lifestyle choices for people with diabetes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(9), pages 2341-2353, November.
    3. van Exel, Job & Baker, Rachel & Mason, Helen & Donaldson, Cam & Brouwer, Werner, 2015. "Public views on principles for health care priority setting: Findings of a European cross-country study using Q methodology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 128-137.
    4. Sim, Julius & Madden, Sue, 2008. "Illness experience in fibromyalgia syndrome: A metasynthesis of qualitative studies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 57-67, July.
    5. Shim, Jae-Mahn & Kim, Jibum, 2020. "Contextualizing geneticization and medical pluralism: How variable institutionalization of traditional, complementary, and alternative medicine (TCAM) conditions effects of genetic beliefs on utilizat," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 267(C).
    6. Nov-Klaiman, Tamar & Frisman, Marina & Raz, Aviad E. & Rehmann-Sutter, Christoph, 2022. "Views on disability and prenatal testing among families with Down syndrome and disability activists: A comparative analysis of interviews from Germany and Israel," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 303(C).
    7. Ida Björkman & Magnus Simrén & Gisela Ringström & Eva Jakobsson Ung, 2016. "Patients’ experiences of healthcare encounters in severe irritable bowel syndrome: an analysis based on narrative and feminist theory," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(19-20), pages 2967-2978, October.
    8. Raz, Aviad E. & Vizner, Yafa, 2008. "Carrier matching and collective socialization in community genetics: Dor Yeshorim and the reinforcement of stigma," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(9), pages 1361-1369, November.

    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:63:y:2006:i:5:p:1188-1200. 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.