Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Ultrasound | Research article

Experiences of pregnant women with a third trimester routine ultrasound – a qualitative study

Authors: Myrte Westerneng, Mariëlle Diepeveen, Anke B. Witteveen, Marjan J. Westerman, Henriette E. van der Horst, Anneloes L. van Baar, Ank de Jonge

Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Studies showed that pregnant women generally value routine ultrasounds in the first two trimesters because these provide reassurance and a chance to see their unborn baby. This, in turn, might help to decrease maternal anxiety levels and increase the bond with the baby. However, it is unclear whether pregnant women hold the same positive views about a third trimester routine ultrasound, which is increasingly being used in the Netherlands as a screening tool to monitor fetal growth. The aim of this study was to explore pregnant women’s experiences with a third trimester routine ultrasound.

Methods

We held semi-structured interviews with fifteen low-risk pregnant women who received a third trimester routine ultrasound in the context of the Dutch IUGR RIsk Selection (IRIS) study. The IRIS study is a nationwide cluster randomized controlled trial carried out among more than 13,000 women to examine the effectiveness of a third trimester routine ultrasound to monitor fetal growth. For the interviews, participants were purposively selected based on parity, age, ethnicity, and educational level. We performed thematic content analysis using MAXQDA.

Results

Most pregnant women appreciated a third trimester routine ultrasound because it provided them confirmation that their baby was fine and an extra opportunity to see their baby. At the same time they expressed that they already felt confident about the health of their baby, and did not feel that their bond with their baby had increased after the third trimester ultrasound. Women also reported that they were getting used to routine ultrasounds throughout their pregnancy, and that this increased their need for another one.

Conclusions

Pregnant women seem to appreciate a third trimester routine ultrasound, but it does not seem to reduce anxiety or to improve bonding with their baby. Women’s appreciation of a third trimester routine ultrasound might arise from getting used to routine ultrasounds throughout pregnancy. We recommend to examine the psychological impact of third trimester routine ultrasounds in future studies. Results should be taken into consideration when balancing the gains, which are as yet not clear, of introducing a third trimester routine ultrasound against unwanted side effects and costs.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Garcia J, Bricker L, Henderson J, Martin M, Mugford M, Nielson J, et al. Women’s views of pregnancy ultrasound: a systematic review. Birth. 2002;29(4):225–50.CrossRef Garcia J, Bricker L, Henderson J, Martin M, Mugford M, Nielson J, et al. Women’s views of pregnancy ultrasound: a systematic review. Birth. 2002;29(4):225–50.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Allyse M, Minear MA, Berson E, Sridhar S, Rote M, Hung A, et al. Non-invasive prenatal testing: a review of international implementation and challenges. Int J Women's Health. 2015;7:113–26.CrossRef Allyse M, Minear MA, Berson E, Sridhar S, Rote M, Hung A, et al. Non-invasive prenatal testing: a review of international implementation and challenges. Int J Women's Health. 2015;7:113–26.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Gitsels-van der Wal J, Verhoeven PS, Mannien J, Martin L, Reinders HS, Spelten E, et al. Factors affecting the uptake of prenatal screening tests for congenital anomalies; a multicentre prospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14(1):264.CrossRef Gitsels-van der Wal J, Verhoeven PS, Mannien J, Martin L, Reinders HS, Spelten E, et al. Factors affecting the uptake of prenatal screening tests for congenital anomalies; a multicentre prospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14(1):264.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Ward P. Down’s syndrome screening in England. London: NHS Fetal Anomaly Screening Programme. Committe UNS; 2011. Ward P. Down’s syndrome screening in England. London: NHS Fetal Anomaly Screening Programme. Committe UNS; 2011.
6.
go back to reference Ekelund CK, Petersen OB, Skibsted L, Kjaergaard S, Vogel I, Tabor A. First-trimester screening for trisomy 21 in Denmark: implications for detection and birth rates of trisomy 18 and trisomy 13. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38(2):140–4.CrossRef Ekelund CK, Petersen OB, Skibsted L, Kjaergaard S, Vogel I, Tabor A. First-trimester screening for trisomy 21 in Denmark: implications for detection and birth rates of trisomy 18 and trisomy 13. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38(2):140–4.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Gezondheidsraad. Prenatale screening: Downsyndroom, neuralebuisdefecten, routine-echoscopie. Den Haag: Gezondheidsraad. Publicatie nr 11; 2001. Gezondheidsraad. Prenatale screening: Downsyndroom, neuralebuisdefecten, routine-echoscopie. Den Haag: Gezondheidsraad. Publicatie nr 11; 2001.
9.
go back to reference Bricker L, Medley N, Pratt JJ. Routine ultrasound in late pregnancy (after 24 weeks’ gestation). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;6:CD001451. Bricker L, Medley N, Pratt JJ. Routine ultrasound in late pregnancy (after 24 weeks’ gestation). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;6:CD001451.
10.
go back to reference Edvardsson K, Mogren I, Lalos A, Persson M, Small R. A routine tool with far-reaching influence: Australian midwives’ views on the use of ultrasound during pregnancy. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15(1):195.CrossRef Edvardsson K, Mogren I, Lalos A, Persson M, Small R. A routine tool with far-reaching influence: Australian midwives’ views on the use of ultrasound during pregnancy. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15(1):195.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Burton-Jeangros C. Surveillance of risks in everyday life: the agency of pregnant women and its limitations. Soc Theory Heal. 2011;9(4):419–36.CrossRef Burton-Jeangros C. Surveillance of risks in everyday life: the agency of pregnant women and its limitations. Soc Theory Heal. 2011;9(4):419–36.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Hammer RP, Burton-Jeangros C. Tensions around risks in pregnancy: a typology of women’s experiences of surveillance medicine. Soc Sci Med. 2013;93:55–63.CrossRef Hammer RP, Burton-Jeangros C. Tensions around risks in pregnancy: a typology of women’s experiences of surveillance medicine. Soc Sci Med. 2013;93:55–63.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference French S. Perceptions of routine nuchal translucency screening. Br J Midwifery. 2000;8(10):632–8.CrossRef French S. Perceptions of routine nuchal translucency screening. Br J Midwifery. 2000;8(10):632–8.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Larsen T, Nguyen TH, Munk M, Svendsen L, Teisner L. Ultrasound screening in the 2nd trimester. The pregnant woman’s background knowledge, expectations, experiences and acceptances. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2000;15(5):383–6. Larsen T, Nguyen TH, Munk M, Svendsen L, Teisner L. Ultrasound screening in the 2nd trimester. The pregnant woman’s background knowledge, expectations, experiences and acceptances. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2000;15(5):383–6.
15.
go back to reference Crang Svalenius E, Dykes A-K, Jörgensen C. Organized routine ultrasound in the second trimester-one hundred Womens’ experiences. J Matern Investig. 1996;6(4):219–22. Crang Svalenius E, Dykes A-K, Jörgensen C. Organized routine ultrasound in the second trimester-one hundred Womens’ experiences. J Matern Investig. 1996;6(4):219–22.
16.
go back to reference Eurenius K, Axelsson O, Gällstedt-Fransson I, Sjöden P. Perception of information, expectations and experiences among women and their partners attending a second-trimester routine ultrasound scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1997;9(2):86–90.CrossRef Eurenius K, Axelsson O, Gällstedt-Fransson I, Sjöden P. Perception of information, expectations and experiences among women and their partners attending a second-trimester routine ultrasound scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1997;9(2):86–90.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Clement S, Wilson J, Sikorski J. Women’s experiences of antenatal ultrasound scans. In: Clement S, editor. Psychological perspectives on pregnancy and childbirth. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1998. p. 7–24. Clement S, Wilson J, Sikorski J. Women’s experiences of antenatal ultrasound scans. In: Clement S, editor. Psychological perspectives on pregnancy and childbirth. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1998. p. 7–24.
18.
go back to reference Ekelin M, Crang-Svalenius E, Dykes AK. A qualitative study of mothers’ and fathers’ experiences of routine ultrasound examination in Sweden. Midwifery. 2004;20(4):335–44.CrossRef Ekelin M, Crang-Svalenius E, Dykes AK. A qualitative study of mothers’ and fathers’ experiences of routine ultrasound examination in Sweden. Midwifery. 2004;20(4):335–44.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Alhusen JL. A literature update on maternal-fetal attachment. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2008;37(3):315–28.CrossRef Alhusen JL. A literature update on maternal-fetal attachment. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2008;37(3):315–28.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Yarcheski A, Mahon NE, Yarcheski TJ, Hanks MM, Cannella BL. A meta-analytic study of predictors of maternal-fetal attachment. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009;46(5):708–15.CrossRef Yarcheski A, Mahon NE, Yarcheski TJ, Hanks MM, Cannella BL. A meta-analytic study of predictors of maternal-fetal attachment. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009;46(5):708–15.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Nabhan AF, Faris MA. High feedback versus low feedback of prenatal ultrasound for reducing maternal anxiety and improving maternal health behaviour in pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;4:CD007208. Nabhan AF, Faris MA. High feedback versus low feedback of prenatal ultrasound for reducing maternal anxiety and improving maternal health behaviour in pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;4:CD007208.
22.
go back to reference Baillie C, Smith J, Hewison J, Mason G. Ultrasound screening for chromosomal abnormality: Women’s reactions to false positive results. Br J Health Psychol. 2000;5(4):377–94.CrossRef Baillie C, Smith J, Hewison J, Mason G. Ultrasound screening for chromosomal abnormality: Women’s reactions to false positive results. Br J Health Psychol. 2000;5(4):377–94.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Harpel TS. Fear of the unknown: ultrasound and anxiety about fetal health. Health. 2008;12(3):295–312.CrossRef Harpel TS. Fear of the unknown: ultrasound and anxiety about fetal health. Health. 2008;12(3):295–312.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Thomas GM, Roberts J, Griffiths FE. Ultrasound as a technology of reassurance? How pregnant women and health care professionals articulate ultrasound reassurance and its limitations. Sociol Health Illn. 2017;39(6):893–907.CrossRef Thomas GM, Roberts J, Griffiths FE. Ultrasound as a technology of reassurance? How pregnant women and health care professionals articulate ultrasound reassurance and its limitations. Sociol Health Illn. 2017;39(6):893–907.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Henrichs J, Verfaille V, Viester L, Westerneng M, Molewijk B, Franx A, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of routine third trimester ultrasound screening for intrauterine growth restriction: study protocol of a nationwide stepped wedge cluster-randomized trial in the Netherlands (the IRIS study). BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16(1):310.CrossRef Henrichs J, Verfaille V, Viester L, Westerneng M, Molewijk B, Franx A, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of routine third trimester ultrasound screening for intrauterine growth restriction: study protocol of a nationwide stepped wedge cluster-randomized trial in the Netherlands (the IRIS study). BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16(1):310.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Glaser BG, Strauss AL. Discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. New York: Routledge; 2017.CrossRef Glaser BG, Strauss AL. Discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. New York: Routledge; 2017.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Boukydis CF, Treadwell MC, Delaney-Black V, Boyes K, King M, Robinson T, et al. Women’s responses to ultrasound examinations during routine screens in an obstetric clinic. J Ultrasound Med. 2006;25(6):721–8.CrossRef Boukydis CF, Treadwell MC, Delaney-Black V, Boyes K, King M, Robinson T, et al. Women’s responses to ultrasound examinations during routine screens in an obstetric clinic. J Ultrasound Med. 2006;25(6):721–8.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Huizink AC, Mulder EJH, de Medina PGR, Visser GHA, Buitelaar JK. Is pregnancy anxiety a distinctive syndrome? Early Hum Dev. 2004;79(2):81–91.CrossRef Huizink AC, Mulder EJH, de Medina PGR, Visser GHA, Buitelaar JK. Is pregnancy anxiety a distinctive syndrome? Early Hum Dev. 2004;79(2):81–91.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications; 1998. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications; 1998.
30.
go back to reference Molander E, Alehagen S, Berterö CM. Routine ultrasound examination during pregnancy: a world of possibilities. Midwifery. 2010;26(1):18–26.CrossRef Molander E, Alehagen S, Berterö CM. Routine ultrasound examination during pregnancy: a world of possibilities. Midwifery. 2010;26(1):18–26.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Ockleford E, Berryman J, Hsu R. Do women understand ultrasound prenatal screening for foetal abnormality? Br J Midwifery. 2003;11(7):445–9.CrossRef Ockleford E, Berryman J, Hsu R. Do women understand ultrasound prenatal screening for foetal abnormality? Br J Midwifery. 2003;11(7):445–9.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Experiences of pregnant women with a third trimester routine ultrasound – a qualitative study
Authors
Myrte Westerneng
Mariëlle Diepeveen
Anke B. Witteveen
Marjan J. Westerman
Henriette E. van der Horst
Anneloes L. van Baar
Ank de Jonge
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2470-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2019 Go to the issue