IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0261096.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

First and second trimester ultrasound in pregnancy: A systematic review and metasynthesis of the views and experiences of pregnant women, partners, and health workers

Author

Listed:
  • Gill Moncrieff
  • Kenneth Finlayson
  • Sarah Cordey
  • Rebekah McCrimmon
  • Catherine Harris
  • Maria Barreix
  • Özge Tunçalp
  • Soo Downe

Abstract

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends one ultrasound scan before 24 weeks gestation as part of routine antenatal care (WHO 2016). We explored influences on provision and uptake through views and experiences of pregnant women, partners, and health workers. Methods: We undertook a systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42021230926). We derived summaries of findings and overarching themes using metasynthesis methods. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SocIndex, LILACS, and AIM (Nov 25th 2020) for qualitative studies reporting views and experiences of routine ultrasound provision to 24 weeks gestation, with no language or date restriction. After quality assessment, data were logged and analysed in Excel. We assessed confidence in the findings using Grade-CERQual. Findings: From 7076 hits, we included 80 papers (1994–2020, 23 countries, 16 LICs/MICs, over 1500 participants). We identified 17 review findings, (moderate or high confidence: 14/17), and four themes: sociocultural influences and expectations; the power of visual technology; joy and devastation: consequences of ultrasound findings; the significance of relationship in the ultrasound encounter. Providing or receiving ultrasound was positive for most, reportedly increasing parental-fetal engagement. However, abnormal findings were often shocking. Some reported changing future reproductive decisions after equivocal results, even when the eventual diagnosis was positive. Attitudes and behaviours of sonographers influenced service user experience. Ultrasound providers expressed concern about making mistakes, recognising their need for education, training, and adequate time with women. Ultrasound sex determination influenced female feticide in some contexts, in others, termination was not socially acceptable. Overuse was noted to reduce clinical antenatal skills as well as the use and uptake of other forms of antenatal care. These factors influenced utility and equity of ultrasound in some settings. Conclusion: Though antenatal ultrasound was largely seen as positive, long-term adverse psychological and reproductive consequences were reported for some. Gender inequity may be reinforced by female feticide following ultrasound in some contexts. Provider attitudes and behaviours, time to engage fully with service users, social norms, access to follow up, and the potential for overuse all need to be considered.

Suggested Citation

  • Gill Moncrieff & Kenneth Finlayson & Sarah Cordey & Rebekah McCrimmon & Catherine Harris & Maria Barreix & Özge Tunçalp & Soo Downe, 2021. "First and second trimester ultrasound in pregnancy: A systematic review and metasynthesis of the views and experiences of pregnant women, partners, and health workers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(12), pages 1-25, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0261096
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261096
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0261096
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0261096&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0261096?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
    ---><---

    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:plo:pone00:0261096. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.