Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Facilitating autonomous, confident and satisfying choices: a mixed-method study of women’s choice-making in prenatal screening for common aneuploidies

Authors: An Chen, Henni Tenhunen, Paulus Torkki, Antti Peltokorpi, Seppo Heinonen, Paul Lillrank, Vedran Stefanovic

Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Population-based prenatal screening has become a common and widely available obstetrical practice in majority of developed countries. Under the patient autonomy principle, women should understand the screening options, be able to take their personal preferences and situations into account, and be encouraged to make autonomous and intentional decisions. The majority of the current research focuses on the prenatal screening uptake rate, women’s choice on screening tests, and the influential factors. However, little attention has been paid to women’s choice-making processes and experiences in prenatal screening and their influences on choice satisfaction. Understanding women’s choice-making processes and experiences in pregnancy and childbirth is the prerequisite for designing women-centered choice aids and delivering women-centered maternity care. This paper presents a pilot study that aims to investigate women’s experiences when they make choices for screening tests, quantify the choice-making experience, and identify the experiential factors that affect women’s satisfaction on choices they made.

Method

We conducted a mixed-method research at Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital District (HUS) in Finland. First, the women’s choice-making experiences were explored by semi-structured interviews. We interviewed 28 women who participated in prenatal screening. The interview data was processed by thematic analysis. Then, a cross-sectional self-completion survey was designed and implemented, assessing women’s experiences in choice-making and identifying the experiential factors that influence choice satisfaction. Of 940 distributed questionnaires, 185 responses were received. Multivariable linear regression analysis was used to detect the effects of the variables.

Results

We developed a set of measurements for women’s choice-making experiences in prenatal screening with seven variables: activeness, informedness, confidence, social pressure, difficulty, positive emotion and negative emotion. Regression revealed that activeness in choice-making (β = 0.176; p = 0.023), confidence in choice-making (β = 0.388; p < 0.001), perceived social pressure (β = − 0.306; p < 0.001) and perceived difficulty (β = − 0.274; p < 0.001) significantly influenced women’s choice satisfaction in prenatal screening.

Conclusions

This study explores the experiential dimension of women’s choice-making in prenatal screening. Our result will be useful for service providers to design women-centered choice environment. Women’s willingness and capabilities of making active choices, their preferences, and social reliance should be well considered in order to facilitate autonomous, confident and satisfying choices.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Sutherland S, Farrell RM, Lockwood C. Genetic screening and testing in an episode-based payment model: preserving patient autonomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124(5):987–91.CrossRefPubMed Sutherland S, Farrell RM, Lockwood C. Genetic screening and testing in an episode-based payment model: preserving patient autonomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124(5):987–91.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Carroll FE, Al-Janabi H, Flynn T, Montgomery AA. Women and their partners’ preferences for Down’s syndrome screening tests: a discrete choice experiment. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33(5):449–56.CrossRefPubMed Carroll FE, Al-Janabi H, Flynn T, Montgomery AA. Women and their partners’ preferences for Down’s syndrome screening tests: a discrete choice experiment. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33(5):449–56.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference García E, Timmermans DR, van Leeuwen E. The impact of ethical beliefs on decisions about prenatal screening tests: searching for justification. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66(3):753–64.CrossRefPubMed García E, Timmermans DR, van Leeuwen E. The impact of ethical beliefs on decisions about prenatal screening tests: searching for justification. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66(3):753–64.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Lou S, Mikkelsen L, Hvidman L, Petersen OB, Nielsen CP. Does screening for Down's syndrome cause anxiety in pregnant women? A systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015;94(1):15–27.CrossRefPubMed Lou S, Mikkelsen L, Hvidman L, Petersen OB, Nielsen CP. Does screening for Down's syndrome cause anxiety in pregnant women? A systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015;94(1):15–27.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Santalahti P, Hemminki E, Latikka A-M, Ryynänen M. Women's decision-making in prenatal screening. Soc Sci Med. 1998;46(8):1067–76.CrossRefPubMed Santalahti P, Hemminki E, Latikka A-M, Ryynänen M. Women's decision-making in prenatal screening. Soc Sci Med. 1998;46(8):1067–76.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Schoonen H, van Agt H, Essink-Bot M-L, Wildschut H, Steegers E, de Koning H. Informed decision-making in prenatal screening for Down's syndrome: what knowledge is relevant? Patient Educ Couns. 2011;84(2):265–70.CrossRefPubMed Schoonen H, van Agt H, Essink-Bot M-L, Wildschut H, Steegers E, de Koning H. Informed decision-making in prenatal screening for Down's syndrome: what knowledge is relevant? Patient Educ Couns. 2011;84(2):265–70.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Dormandy E, Hooper R, Michie S, Marteau T. Informed choice to undergo prenatal screening: a comparison of two hospitals conducting testing either as part of a routine visit or requiring a separate visit. J Med Screen. 2002;9(3):109–14.CrossRefPubMed Dormandy E, Hooper R, Michie S, Marteau T. Informed choice to undergo prenatal screening: a comparison of two hospitals conducting testing either as part of a routine visit or requiring a separate visit. J Med Screen. 2002;9(3):109–14.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Ahmed S, Bryant LD, Tizro Z, Shickle D. Is advice incompatible with autonomous informed choice? Women’s perceptions of advice in the context of antenatal screening: a qualitative study. Health Expect. 2014;17(4):555–64.CrossRefPubMed Ahmed S, Bryant LD, Tizro Z, Shickle D. Is advice incompatible with autonomous informed choice? Women’s perceptions of advice in the context of antenatal screening: a qualitative study. Health Expect. 2014;17(4):555–64.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Garcia E, Timmermans D, 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 Garcia E, Timmermans D, 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
10.
go back to reference Yu J. A systematic review of issues around antenatal screening and prenatal diagnostic testing for genetic disorders: women of Asian origin in western countries. Health Soc Care Community. 2012;20(4):329–46.CrossRefPubMed Yu J. A systematic review of issues around antenatal screening and prenatal diagnostic testing for genetic disorders: women of Asian origin in western countries. Health Soc Care Community. 2012;20(4):329–46.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Bakker M, Birnie E, Pajkrt E, Bilardo CM, Snijders RJM. Low uptake of the combined test in the Netherlands–which factors contribute? Prenat Diagn. 2012;32(13):1305–12.CrossRefPubMed Bakker M, Birnie E, Pajkrt E, Bilardo CM, Snijders RJM. Low uptake of the combined test in the Netherlands–which factors contribute? Prenat Diagn. 2012;32(13):1305–12.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Crombag NM, Schielen PC, Hukkelhoven CW, Iedema R, Bensing JM, Visser GH, Stoutenbeek P, Koster MP. Determinants of first trimester combined test participation within the central region of the Netherlands. Prenat Diagn. 2015;35(5):486–92.CrossRefPubMed Crombag NM, Schielen PC, Hukkelhoven CW, Iedema R, Bensing JM, Visser GH, Stoutenbeek P, Koster MP. Determinants of first trimester combined test participation within the central region of the Netherlands. Prenat Diagn. 2015;35(5):486–92.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Košec V, Zec I, Tišlarić-Medenjak D, Kuna K, Šimundić AM, Lajtman-Križaić M, Lovrić B, Mimica M, Komadina Estatiev Z, Borgudan V. Pregnant women’s knowledge and attitudes to prenatal screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities: croatian multicentric survey. Coll Antropol. 2013;37(2):483–9.PubMed Košec V, Zec I, Tišlarić-Medenjak D, Kuna K, Šimundić AM, Lajtman-Križaić M, Lovrić B, Mimica M, Komadina Estatiev Z, Borgudan V. Pregnant women’s knowledge and attitudes to prenatal screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities: croatian multicentric survey. Coll Antropol. 2013;37(2):483–9.PubMed
15.
go back to reference Williams C, Alderson P, Farsides B. What constitutes ‘balanced information in the practitioners’ portrayals of Down's syndrome? Midwifery. 2002;18(3):230–7.CrossRefPubMed Williams C, Alderson P, Farsides B. What constitutes ‘balanced information in the practitioners’ portrayals of Down's syndrome? Midwifery. 2002;18(3):230–7.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Potter BK, O’Reilly N, Etchegary H, Howley H, Graham ID, Walker M, Coyle D, Chorny Y, Cappelli M, Boland I. Exploring informed choice in the context of prenatal testing: findings from a qualitative study. Health Expect. 2008;11(4):355–65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Potter BK, O’Reilly N, Etchegary H, Howley H, Graham ID, Walker M, Coyle D, Chorny Y, Cappelli M, Boland I. Exploring informed choice in the context of prenatal testing: findings from a qualitative study. Health Expect. 2008;11(4):355–65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
go back to reference Merkouris A, Yfantopoulos J, Lanara V, Lemonidou C. Developing an instrument to measure patient satisfaction with nursing care in Greece. J Nurs Manag. 1999;7(2):91–100.CrossRefPubMed Merkouris A, Yfantopoulos J, Lanara V, Lemonidou C. Developing an instrument to measure patient satisfaction with nursing care in Greece. J Nurs Manag. 1999;7(2):91–100.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Nilvér H, Begley C, Berg M. Measuring women’s childbirth experiences: a systematic review for identification and analysis of validated instruments. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(1):203–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Nilvér H, Begley C, Berg M. Measuring women’s childbirth experiences: a systematic review for identification and analysis of validated instruments. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(1):203–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
go back to reference Larkin P, Begley CM, Devane D. Women's experiences of labour and birth: an evolutionary concept analysis. Midwifery. 2009;25(2):e49–59.CrossRefPubMed Larkin P, Begley CM, Devane D. Women's experiences of labour and birth: an evolutionary concept analysis. Midwifery. 2009;25(2):e49–59.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Shocker AD, Ben-Akiva M, Boccara B, Nedungadi P. Consideration set influences on consumer decision-making and choice: issues, models, and suggestions. Mark Lett. 1991;2(3):181–97.CrossRef Shocker AD, Ben-Akiva M, Boccara B, Nedungadi P. Consideration set influences on consumer decision-making and choice: issues, models, and suggestions. Mark Lett. 1991;2(3):181–97.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Helkkula A, Kelleher C, Pihlström M. Practices and experiences: challenges and opportunities for value research. J Serv Manage. 2012;23(4):554–70.CrossRef Helkkula A, Kelleher C, Pihlström M. Practices and experiences: challenges and opportunities for value research. J Serv Manage. 2012;23(4):554–70.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Helkkula A. Characterising the concept of service experience. J Serv Manage. 2011;22(3):367–89.CrossRef Helkkula A. Characterising the concept of service experience. J Serv Manage. 2011;22(3):367–89.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Helkkula A, Kelleher C. Circularity of customer service experience and customer perceived value. J Cust Behav. 2010;9(1):37–53.CrossRef Helkkula A, Kelleher C. Circularity of customer service experience and customer perceived value. J Cust Behav. 2010;9(1):37–53.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Brondino N, Colombini G, Morandotti N, Podavini F, De Vidovich G, Formica M, Arossa A, De Silvestri A, Montanari L, Caverzasi E. Psychological correlates of decision-making during prenatal diagnosis: a prospective study. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;34(2):68–74.CrossRefPubMed Brondino N, Colombini G, Morandotti N, Podavini F, De Vidovich G, Formica M, Arossa A, De Silvestri A, Montanari L, Caverzasi E. Psychological correlates of decision-making during prenatal diagnosis: a prospective study. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;34(2):68–74.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Aune I, Möller A. ‘I want a choice, but I don’t want to decide’: a qualitative study of pregnant women’s experiences regarding early ultrasound risk assessment for chromosomal anomalies. Midwifery. 2012;28(1):14–23.CrossRefPubMed Aune I, Möller A. ‘I want a choice, but I don’t want to decide’: a qualitative study of pregnant women’s experiences regarding early ultrasound risk assessment for chromosomal anomalies. Midwifery. 2012;28(1):14–23.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Ternby E, Ingvoldstad C, Annerén G, Lindgren P, Axelsson O. Information and knowledge about Down syndrome among women and partners after first trimester combined testing. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015;94(3):329–32.CrossRefPubMed Ternby E, Ingvoldstad C, Annerén G, Lindgren P, Axelsson O. Information and knowledge about Down syndrome among women and partners after first trimester combined testing. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015;94(3):329–32.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Östlund U, Kidd L, Wengström Y, Rowa-Dewar N. Combining qualitative and quantitative research within mixed method research designs: a methodological review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2011;48(3):369–83.CrossRefPubMed Östlund U, Kidd L, Wengström Y, Rowa-Dewar N. Combining qualitative and quantitative research within mixed method research designs: a methodological review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2011;48(3):369–83.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Steckler A, McLeroy KR, Goodman RM, Bird ST, McCormick L. Toward integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: an introduction. Health Educ Q. 1992;19(1):1–8.CrossRefPubMed Steckler A, McLeroy KR, Goodman RM, Bird ST, McCormick L. Toward integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: an introduction. Health Educ Q. 1992;19(1):1–8.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Foss C, Ellefsen B. The value of combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in nursing research by means of method triangulation. J Adv Nurs. 2002;40(2):242–8.CrossRefPubMed Foss C, Ellefsen B. The value of combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in nursing research by means of method triangulation. J Adv Nurs. 2002;40(2):242–8.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Clarke PN, Yaros PS. Research blenders: commentary and response commentary: transitions to New Methodologies in Nursing Sciences. Nurs Sci Q. 1988;1(4):147–9.CrossRefPubMed Clarke PN, Yaros PS. Research blenders: commentary and response commentary: transitions to New Methodologies in Nursing Sciences. Nurs Sci Q. 1988;1(4):147–9.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Hanson WE, Creswell JW, Clark VLP, Petska KS, Creswell JD. Mixed methods research designs in counseling psychology. J Couns Psychol. 2005;52(2):224–35.CrossRef Hanson WE, Creswell JW, Clark VLP, Petska KS, Creswell JD. Mixed methods research designs in counseling psychology. J Couns Psychol. 2005;52(2):224–35.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Murphy K, Casey D, Devane D, Meskell P, Higgins A, Elliot N, Lalor J, Begley C. Reflections on the added value of using mixed methods in the SCAPE study. Nurse Res. 2014;21(4):13–9.CrossRefPubMed Murphy K, Casey D, Devane D, Meskell P, Higgins A, Elliot N, Lalor J, Begley C. Reflections on the added value of using mixed methods in the SCAPE study. Nurse Res. 2014;21(4):13–9.CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Lalor JG, Casey D, Elliott N, Coyne I, Comiskey C, Higgins A, Murphy K, Devane D, Begley C. Using case study within a sequential explanatory design to evaluate the impact of specialist and advanced practice roles on clinical outcomes: the SCAPE study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13(1):55–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lalor JG, Casey D, Elliott N, Coyne I, Comiskey C, Higgins A, Murphy K, Devane D, Begley C. Using case study within a sequential explanatory design to evaluate the impact of specialist and advanced practice roles on clinical outcomes: the SCAPE study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13(1):55–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
go back to reference Bury M. Illness narratives: fact or fiction? Sociol Health Illn. 2001;23(3):263–85.CrossRef Bury M. Illness narratives: fact or fiction? Sociol Health Illn. 2001;23(3):263–85.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Gill L, Helkkula A, Cobelli N, White L. How do customers and pharmacists experience generic substitution? Int J Pharm Healthc Mark. 2010;4(4):375–95.CrossRef Gill L, Helkkula A, Cobelli N, White L. How do customers and pharmacists experience generic substitution? Int J Pharm Healthc Mark. 2010;4(4):375–95.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Pottie K, Haydt S, Farrell B, Dolovich L, Sellors C, Hogg W. Narrative reports to monitor and evaluate the integration of pharmacists into family practice settings. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6(2):161–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Pottie K, Haydt S, Farrell B, Dolovich L, Sellors C, Hogg W. Narrative reports to monitor and evaluate the integration of pharmacists into family practice settings. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6(2):161–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
go back to reference Godin G, Kok G. The theory of planned behavior: a review of its applications to health-related behaviors. Am J Health Promot. 1996;11(2):87–98.CrossRefPubMed Godin G, Kok G. The theory of planned behavior: a review of its applications to health-related behaviors. Am J Health Promot. 1996;11(2):87–98.CrossRefPubMed
38.
go back to reference Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50(2):179–211.CrossRef Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50(2):179–211.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference DeVellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications. 4th ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Inc; 2016. DeVellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications. 4th ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Inc; 2016.
40.
go back to reference O’Connor AM. User Manual-Decisional Conflict Scale. 1993 [updated 2010]. Ottawa: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; 2014. O’Connor AM. User Manual-Decisional Conflict Scale. 1993 [updated 2010]. Ottawa: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; 2014.
41.
go back to reference O’Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Mak. 1995;15(1):25–30.CrossRef O’Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Mak. 1995;15(1):25–30.CrossRef
42.
go back to reference Marteau TM, Bekker H. The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Br J Clin Psychol. 1992;31(3):301–6.CrossRefPubMed Marteau TM, Bekker H. The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Br J Clin Psychol. 1992;31(3):301–6.CrossRefPubMed
43.
go back to reference Gourounti K, Zerva C, Gavriil E, Nanou C. Prenatal ultrasound screening for down syndrome and informed choice. Rev Clin Pharmacol Pharmacokinet Int Ed. 2015;29(1):37–41. Gourounti K, Zerva C, Gavriil E, Nanou C. Prenatal ultrasound screening for down syndrome and informed choice. Rev Clin Pharmacol Pharmacokinet Int Ed. 2015;29(1):37–41.
44.
go back to reference Porter M, Macintyre S. What is, must be best: a research note on conservative or deferential responses to antenatal care provision. Soc Sci Med. 1984;19(11):1197–200.CrossRefPubMed Porter M, Macintyre S. What is, must be best: a research note on conservative or deferential responses to antenatal care provision. Soc Sci Med. 1984;19(11):1197–200.CrossRefPubMed
45.
go back to reference Carroll JC, Rideout A, Wilson BJ, Allanson J, Blaine S, Esplen MJ, Farrell S, Graham GE, MacKenzie J, Meschino WS. Maternal age–based prenatal screening for chromosomal disorders Attitudes of women and health care providers toward changes. Can Fam Physician. 2013;59(1):e39–47.PubMedPubMedCentral Carroll JC, Rideout A, Wilson BJ, Allanson J, Blaine S, Esplen MJ, Farrell S, Graham GE, MacKenzie J, Meschino WS. Maternal age–based prenatal screening for chromosomal disorders Attitudes of women and health care providers toward changes. Can Fam Physician. 2013;59(1):e39–47.PubMedPubMedCentral
46.
go back to reference Légaré F, St-Jacques S, Gagnon S, Njoya M, Brisson M, Frémont P, Rousseau F. Prenatal screening for Down syndrome: a survey of willingness in women and family physicians to engage in shared decision-making. Prenat Diagn. 2011;31(4):319–26.CrossRefPubMed Légaré F, St-Jacques S, Gagnon S, Njoya M, Brisson M, Frémont P, Rousseau F. Prenatal screening for Down syndrome: a survey of willingness in women and family physicians to engage in shared decision-making. Prenat Diagn. 2011;31(4):319–26.CrossRefPubMed
47.
go back to reference Sharma G, Gold HT, Chervenak FA, McCullough L, Alt AK, Chasen ST. Patient preference regarding first-trimester aneuploidy risk assessment. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(4):1429–36.CrossRefPubMed Sharma G, Gold HT, Chervenak FA, McCullough L, Alt AK, Chasen ST. Patient preference regarding first-trimester aneuploidy risk assessment. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(4):1429–36.CrossRefPubMed
48.
go back to reference Wong AE, Kuppermann M, Creasman JM, Sepulveda W, Vargas JE. Patient and provider attitudes toward screening for Down syndrome in a Latin American country where abortion is illegal. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011;115(3):235–9.CrossRefPubMed Wong AE, Kuppermann M, Creasman JM, Sepulveda W, Vargas JE. Patient and provider attitudes toward screening for Down syndrome in a Latin American country where abortion is illegal. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011;115(3):235–9.CrossRefPubMed
49.
go back to reference De Graaf IM, Tijmstra T, Bleker OP, Van Lith JM. Womens’ preference in Down syndrome screening. Prenat Diagn. 2002;22(7):624–9.CrossRefPubMed De Graaf IM, Tijmstra T, Bleker OP, Van Lith JM. Womens’ preference in Down syndrome screening. Prenat Diagn. 2002;22(7):624–9.CrossRefPubMed
50.
go back to reference Spencer K, Aitken D. Factors affecting women’s preference for type of prenatal screening test for chromosomal anomalies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;24(7):735–9.CrossRefPubMed Spencer K, Aitken D. Factors affecting women’s preference for type of prenatal screening test for chromosomal anomalies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;24(7):735–9.CrossRefPubMed
51.
go back to reference Lawson KL, Pierson RA. Maternal decisions regarding prenatal diagnosis: rational choices or sensible decisions? J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2007;29(3):240–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lawson KL, Pierson RA. Maternal decisions regarding prenatal diagnosis: rational choices or sensible decisions? J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2007;29(3):240–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
52.
go back to reference Roberts P, Priest H, Traynor M. Reliability and validity in research. Nurs Stand. 2006;20(44):41–5.CrossRef Roberts P, Priest H, Traynor M. Reliability and validity in research. Nurs Stand. 2006;20(44):41–5.CrossRef
54.
go back to reference Bagozzi RP, Yi Y, Phillips LW. Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Adm Sci Q. 1991;36(3):421–58. Bagozzi RP, Yi Y, Phillips LW. Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Adm Sci Q. 1991;36(3):421–58.
55.
go back to reference Lewis C, Hill M, Skirton H, Chitty LS. Development and validation of a measure of informed choice for women undergoing non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;24:809–16. Lewis C, Hill M, Skirton H, Chitty LS. Development and validation of a measure of informed choice for women undergoing non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;24:809–16.
56.
go back to reference Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull. 1959;56(2):81.CrossRefPubMed Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull. 1959;56(2):81.CrossRefPubMed
57.
go back to reference Witting M, Harala R. The official statistics of finland: Education level of the Finnish population (Finnish title: Suomen virallinen tilasto (SVT): Väestön koulutusrakenne). In: Koulutustilastot 2014. Helsinki: Statistics Finland; 2014. Witting M, Harala R. The official statistics of finland: Education level of the Finnish population (Finnish title: Suomen virallinen tilasto (SVT): Väestön koulutusrakenne). In: Koulutustilastot 2014. Helsinki: Statistics Finland; 2014.
58.
go back to reference Vuori E, Gissler M. Perinatal statistics: parturients, deliveries and newborns 2015. Helsinki: National Institute for Health and Welfare of Finland (THL); 2016. Vuori E, Gissler M. Perinatal statistics: parturients, deliveries and newborns 2015. Helsinki: National Institute for Health and Welfare of Finland (THL); 2016.
Metadata
Title
Facilitating autonomous, confident and satisfying choices: a mixed-method study of women’s choice-making in prenatal screening for common aneuploidies
Authors
An Chen
Henni Tenhunen
Paulus Torkki
Antti Peltokorpi
Seppo Heinonen
Paul Lillrank
Vedran Stefanovic
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-1752-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2018 Go to the issue