Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

A routine tool with far-reaching influence: Australian midwives’ views on the use of ultrasound during pregnancy

Authors: Kristina Edvardsson, Ingrid Mogren, Ann Lalos, Margareta Persson, Rhonda Small

Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Ultrasound is a tool of increasing importance in maternity care. Midwives have a central position in the care of pregnant women. However, studies regarding their experiences of the use of ultrasound in this context are limited. The purpose of this study was to explore Australian midwives’ experiences and views of the role of obstetric ultrasound particularly in relation to clinical management of complicated pregnancy, and situations where maternal and fetal health interests conflict.

Methods

A qualitative study was undertaken in Victoria, Australia in 2012, based on six focus group discussions with midwives (n = 37) working in antenatal and intrapartum care, as part of the CROss-Country Ultrasound Study (CROCUS). Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis.

Results

One overarching theme emerged from the analysis: Obstetric ultrasound – a routine tool with far-reaching influence, and it was built on three categories. First, the category‘Experiencing pros and cons of ultrasound’ highlighted that ultrasound was seen as having many advantages; however, it was also seen as contributing to increased medicalisation of pregnancy, to complex and sometimes uncertain decision-making and to parental anxiety. Second, ‘Viewing ultrasound as a normalised and unquestioned examination’ illuminated how the use of ultrasound has become normalised and unquestioned in health care and in wider society. Midwives were concerned that this impacts negatively on informed consent processes, and at a societal level, to threaten acceptance of human variation and disability. Third, ‘Reflecting on the fetus as a person in relation to the pregnant woman’ described views on that ultrasound has led to increased ‘personification’ of the fetus, and that women often put fetal health interests ahead of their own.

Conclusions

The results reflect the significant influence ultrasound has had in maternity care and highlights ethical and professional challenges that midwives face in their daily working lives concerning its use. Further discussion about the use of ultrasound is needed, both among health professionals and in the community, in order to protect women’s rights to informed decision-making and autonomy in pregnancy and childbirth and to curb unnecessary medicalisation of pregnancy. Midwives’ experiences and views play an essential role in such discussions.
Literature
1.
2.
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). The state of the world’s midwifery. A universal pathway. A woman’s right to health. New York: UNFPA; 2014.
3.
Molander E, Alehagen S, Bertero CM. Routine ultrasound examination during pregnancy: a world of possibilities. Midwifery. 2010;26(1):18–26.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Stein W, Katunda I, Butoto C. A two-level ultrasonographic service in a maternity care unit of a rural district hospital in Tanzania. Trop Doct. 2008;38(2):125–6.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Kimberly HH, Murray A, Mennicke M, Liteplo A, Lew J, Bohan JS, et al. Focused maternal ultrasound by midwives in rural Zambia. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2010;36(8):1267–72.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Swanson JO, Kawooya MG, Swanson DL, Hippe DS, Dungu-Matovu P, Nathan R. The diagnostic impact of limited, screening obstetric ultrasound when performed by midwives in rural Uganda. J Perinatol. 2014;34(7):508–12.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Stevens G, Thompson R, Kruske S, Watson B, Miller YD. What are pregnant women told about models of maternity care in Australia? A retrospective study of women’s reports. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;97(1):114–21.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Chew C, Halliday JL, Riley MM, Penny DJ. Population-based study of antenatal detection of congenital heart disease by ultrasound examination. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007;29(6):619–24.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Garcia J, Bricker L, Henderson J, Martin MA, Mugford M, Nielson J, et al. Women’s views of pregnancy ultrasound: a systematic review. Birth. 2002;29(4):225–50.CrossRefPubMed
10.
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–vi. 1–193.PubMed
11.
Edvardsson K, Small R, Persson M, Lalos A, Mogren I. ‘Ultrasound is an invaluable third eye, but it can’t see everything’: a qualitative study with obstetricians in Australia. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:363.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Saumure K, Given LM. Data saturation. In: Given LM, editor. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications; 2008. p. 196–7.
13.
Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24(2):105–12.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Soltani H, Sandall J. Organisation of maternity care and choices of mode of birth: a worldwide view. Midwifery. 2012;28(2):146–9.CrossRefPubMed
15.
16.
Patterson JA, Roberts CL, Ford JB, Morris JM. Trends and outcomes of induction of labour among nullipara at term. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;51(6):510–7.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Hilder L, Zhichao Z, Parker M, Jahan S, GM C. Australia’s mothers and babies 2012. Perinatal statistics series no. 30. Cat. no. PER 69. Canberra: AIHW; 2014.
18.
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia. National competency standards for the midwife. Melbourne: Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia; 2006.
19.
Hood L, Fenwick J, Butt J. A story of scrutiny and fear: Australian midwives’ experiences of an external review of obstetric services, being involved with litigation and the impact on clinical practice. Midwifery. 2010;26(3):268–85.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Grol R, Wensing M. What drives change? Barriers to and incentives for achieving evidence-based practice. Med J Aust. 2004;180(6 Suppl):S57–60.PubMed
21.
de Jong-Pleij EA, Ribbert LS, Pistorius LR, Tromp E, Mulder EJ, Bilardo CM. Three-dimensional ultrasound and maternal bonding, a third trimester study and a review. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33(1):81–8.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Sedgmen B, McMahon C, Cairns D, Benzie RJ, Woodfield RL. The impact of two-dimensional versus three-dimensional ultrasound exposure on maternal-fetal attachment and maternal health behavior in pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006;27(3):245–51.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Pretorius DH, Gattu S, Ji EK, Hollenbach K, Newton R, Hull A, et al. Preexamination and postexamination assessment of parental-fetal bonding in patients undergoing 3-/4-dimensional obstetric ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med. 2006;25(11):1411–21.PubMed
24.
Alfirevic Z, Stampalija T, Gyte GM. Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in high-risk pregnancies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;11:CD007529.PubMed
25.
26.
Dahl K, Kesmodel U, Hvidman L, Olesen F. Informed consent: attitudes, knowledge and information concerning prenatal examinations. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006;85(12):1414–9.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Garcia E, Timmermans DR, van Leeuwen E. Reconsidering prenatal screening: an empirical-ethical approach to understand moral dilemmas as a question of personal preferences. J Med Ethics. 2009;35(7):410–4.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Ahman A, Runestam K, Sarkadi A. Did I really want to know this? Pregnant women’s reaction to detection of a soft marker during ultrasound screening. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;81(1):87–93.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Potter BK, O’Reilly N, Etchegary H, Howley H, Graham ID, Walker M, et al. Exploring informed choice in the context of prenatal testing: findings from a qualitative study. Health Expect. 2008;11(4):355–65.CrossRefPubMed
30.
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.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Liamputtong P, Watson L. The voices and concerns about prenatal testing of Cambodian, Lao and Vietnamese women in Australia. Midwifery. 2002;18(4):304–13.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Berg SF, Paulsen OG, Carter BS. Why were they in such a hurry to see her die? Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2013;30(4):406–8.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Guon J, Wilfond BS, Farlow B, Brazg T, Janvier A. Our children are not a diagnosis: the experience of parents who continue their pregnancy after a prenatal diagnosis of trisomy 13 or 18. Am J Med Genet A. 2014;164A(2):308–18.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Janvier A, Farlow B, Wilfond BS. The experience of families with children with trisomy 13 and 18 in social networks. Pediatrics. 2012;130(2):293–8.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Farlow B. Choosing the road less traveled. Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care. 2011;41(4):115–6.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Walker LV, Miller VJ, Dalton VK. The health-care experiences of families given the prenatal diagnosis of trisomy 18. J Perinatol. 2008;28(1):12–9.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Redlinger-Grosse K, Bernhardt BA, Berg K, Muenke M, Biesecker BB. The decision to continue: the experiences and needs of parents who receive a prenatal diagnosis of holoprosencephaly. Am J Med Genet. 2002;112(4):369–78.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Chaplin J, Schweitzer R, Perkoulidis S. Experiences of prenatal diagnosis of spina bifida or hydrocephalus in parents who decide to continue with their pregnancy. J Genet Couns. 2005;14(2):151–62.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Chandler M, Smith A. Prenatal screening and women’s perception of infant disability: a Sophie’s Choice for every mother. Nurs Inq. 1998;5(2):71–6.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Zechmeister I. Foetal images: the power of visual technology in antenatal care and the implications for women’s reproductive freedom. Health Care Anal. 2001;9(4):387–400.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Petchesky RP. Fetal images - the power of visual culture in the politics of reproduction. Feminist Stud. 1987;13(2):263–92.CrossRef
42.
Kruske S, Young K, Jenkinson B, Catchlove A. Maternity care providers’ perceptions of women’s autonomy and the law. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13:84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Edvardsson K, Small R, Lalos A, Persson M, Mogren I. Ultrasound’s ‘window on the womb’ brings ethical challenges for balancing maternal and fetal health interests: obstetricians’ experiences in Australia. BMC Medical Ethics. 2015;16:31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
44.
Li Z, Zeki R, Hilder L, Sullivan E. Australia’s mothers and babies 2011. Perinatal statistics series no. 28. Cat. no. PER 59. Canberra: AIHW; 2013.
45.
Metadata
Title
A routine tool with far-reaching influence: Australian midwives’ views on the use of ultrasound during pregnancy
Authors
Kristina Edvardsson
Ingrid Mogren
Ann Lalos
Margareta Persson
Rhonda Small
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-015-0632-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

Vitamin D deficiency and dyslipidemia in early pregnancy

Research article

Risk factors for antepartum stillbirth: a case-control study in Nepal

Research article

An international internet survey of the experiences of 1,714 mothers with a late stillbirth: the STARS cohort study

Research article

Screening for iron deficiency and iron deficiency anaemia in pregnancy: a structured review and gap analysis against UK national screening criteria

Research article

Increasing uptake of influenza vaccine by pregnant women post H1N1 pandemic: a longitudinal study in Melbourne, Australia, 2010 to 2014

Research article

The influence of preferred place of birth on the course of pregnancy and labor among healthy nulliparous women: a prospective cohort study