IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v69y2009i11p1561-1573.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A meta-synthesis of pregnant women's decision-making processes with regard to antenatal screening for Down syndrome

Author

Listed:
  • Reid, Bernie
  • Sinclair, Marlene
  • Barr, Owen
  • Dobbs, Frank
  • Crealey, Grainne

Abstract

The diffusion of antenatal screening programmes for Down syndrome has triggered much discussion about their powerful potential to enhance pregnant women's autonomy and reproductive choices. Simultaneously, considerable debate has been engendered by concerns that such programmes may directly contribute to the emergence of new and complex ethical, legal and social dilemmas for women. Given such discussion and debate, an examination of women's decision-making within the context of antenatal screening for Down syndrome is timely. This paper aims to undertake a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies examining the factors influencing pregnant women's decisions to accept or decline antenatal screening for Down syndrome. The meta-synthesis aims to create more comprehensive understandings and to develop theory which might enable midwives and other healthcare professionals to better meet the needs of pregnant women as they make their screening decisions. Ten electronic health and social science databases were searched together with a hand-search of eleven journals for papers published in English between 1999 and 2008, using predefined search terms, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a quality appraisal framework. Nine papers met the criteria for this meta-synthesis, providing an international perspective on pregnant women's decision-making. Twelve themes were identified by consensus and combined into five core concepts. These core concepts were: destination unknown; to choose or not to choose; risk is rarely pure and never simple; treading on dreams, and betwixt and between. A conceptual framework is proposed which incorporates these themes and core concepts, and provides a new insight into pregnant women's complex decision-making processes with regard to antenatal screening for Down syndrome. However, further research is necessary to determine whether or not the development of a model of decision-making may empower pregnant women in making choices about screening.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:69:y:2009:i:11:p:1561-1573
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(09)00586-3
    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. Campbell, Rona & Pound, Pandora & Pope, Catherine & Britten, Nicky & Pill, Roisin & Morgan, Myfanwy & Donovan, Jenny, 2003. "Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 671-684, February.
    2. Williams, Clare & Sandall, Jane & Lewando-Hundt, Gillian & Heyman, Bob & Spencer, Kevin & Grellier, Rachel, 2005. "Women as moral pioneers? Experiences of first trimester antenatal screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(9), pages 1983-1992, November.
    3. Vassy, Carine, 2006. "From a genetic innovation to mass health programmes: The diffusion of Down's Syndrome prenatal screening and diagnostic techniques in France," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(8), pages 2041-2051, October.
    4. Getz, Linn & Kirkengen, Anne Luise, 2003. "Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: advancing technology, soft markers for fetal chromosomal aberrations, and unacknowledged ethical dilemmas," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(10), pages 2045-2057, May.
    5. 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.
    6. Lewando-Hundt, G. & Shoham-Vardi, I. & Beckerleg, S. & Belmaker, I. & Kassem, F. & Jaafar, A. Abu, 2001. "Knowledge, action and resistance: the selective use of pre-natal screening among Bedouin women of the Negev, Israel," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 561-569, February.
    7. 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.
    8. Scully, Jackie Leach & Banks, Sarah & Shakespeare, Tom W., 2006. "Chance, choice and control: Lay debate on prenatal social sex selection," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 21-31, July.
    9. 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)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Vassy, Carine & Rosman, Sophia & Rousseau, Bénédicte, 2014. "From policy making to service use. Down's syndrome antenatal screening in England, France and the Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 67-74.
    2. 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.
    3. Sarkar, Soumodip & Mateus, Sara, 2022. "Value creation using minimal resources – A meta-synthesis of frugal innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    4. Pinar, Candas & Almeling, Rene & Gadarian, Shana Kushner, 2018. "Does genetic risk for common adult diseases influence reproductive plans? Evidence from a national survey experiment in the United States," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 62-68.
    5. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. Williams, Clare & Ehrich, Kathryn & Farsides, Bobbie & Scott, Rosamund, 2007. "Facilitating choice, framing choice: Staff views on widening the scope of preimplantation genetic diagnosis in the UK," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(6), pages 1094-1105, September.
    3. 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.
    4. Löwy, Ilana, 2022. "Non-invasive prenatal testing: A diagnostic innovation shaped by commercial interests and the regulation conundrum," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Gammeltoft, Tine & Nguyen, Hanh Thi Thuy, 2007. "Fetal conditions and fatal decisions: Ethical dilemmas in ultrasound screening in Vietnam," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(11), pages 2248-2259, June.
    7. Maya Maor & Moflah Ataika & Pesach Shvartzman & Maya Lavie Ajayi, 2021. "“I Had to Rediscover Our Healthy Food”: An Indigenous Perspective on Coping with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-16, December.
    8. Rebecca J Bartlett Ellis & Janet L Welch, 2017. "Medication‐taking behaviours in chronic kidney disease with multiple chronic conditions: a meta‐ethnographic synthesis of qualitative studies," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5-6), pages 586-598, March.
    9. Yu‐Ting Chang & Mark Hayter & Shu‐Chen Wu, 2010. "A systematic review and meta‐ethnography of the qualitative literature: experiences of the menarche," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3‐4), pages 447-460, February.
    10. Eleri Jones & Ernestina Coast, 2013. "Social relationships and postpartum depression in South Asia: A systematic review," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 59(7), pages 690-700, November.
    11. 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.
    12. Hansen, Henrik & Trifkovic, Neda, 2013. "Systematic Reviews: Questions, Methods and Usage," MPRA Paper 47993, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. 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.
    14. Best, Paul & Manktelow, Roger & Taylor, Brian, 2014. "Online communication, social media and adolescent wellbeing: A systematic narrative review," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 27-36.
    15. Oya, Carlos & Schaefer, Florian & Skalidou, Dafni, 2018. "The effectiveness of agricultural certification in developing countries: A systematic review," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 282-312.
    16. Bombard, Yvonne & Abelson, Julia & Simeonov, Dorina & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2011. "Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: A participatory approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 135-144, July.
    17. Shisei Tei & Junya Fujino, 2022. "Social ties, fears and bias during the COVID-19 pandemic: Fragile and flexible mindsets," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-7, December.
    18. Khan, Imran & Kabir, Zobaidul, 2020. "Waste-to-energy generation technologies and the developing economies: A multi-criteria analysis for sustainability assessment," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 320-333.
    19. Carles Campanyà & David Fonseca & Daniel Amo & Núria Martí & Enric Peña, 2021. "Mixed Analysis of the Flipped Classroom in the Concrete and Steel Structures Subject in the Context of COVID-19 Crisis Outbreak. A Pilot Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-20, May.
    20. Helle Feddersen & Tine Mechlenborg Kristiansen & Pernille Tanggaard Andersen & Kim Hørslev‐Petersen & Jette Primdahl, 2017. "Construction of meaningful identities in the context of rheumatoid arthritis, motherhood and paid work: A meta‐ethnography," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(23-24), pages 4117-4128, December.

    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:11:p:1561-1573. 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.