Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2020

01-12-2020 | Trisomy 21 | Research article

Pregnant women’s attitudes and decision-making regarding prenatal Down syndrome screening and diagnosis: scale development and validation

Authors: Wei-Hsiang Huang, Shu-Fang Shih, Chen-Li Lin, Chieh-Hsing Liu

Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Down syndrome is a common chromosomal abnormality and prenatal screening can inform parents of the risk of their baby having Down syndrome. Little research has examined how decisions regarding both Down syndrome screening as well as diagnosis are made among women who are currently pregnant and how their decisions are influenced by their social contexts, specifically family and social media, using mixed methods. The study was to test the validity and reliability of a scale that measures pregnant women’s attitudes and decision-making concerning prenatal Down syndrome screening and diagnosis in urban areas of Taiwan.

Methods

We developed an item pool based on a literature review and in-depth interviews with 30 pregnant women recruited at two district hospitals in urban areas. The item pool was reviewed by a panel of experts and then administered to 300 women who had been pregnant for less than 24 weeks and had not received the Down syndrome screening tests. We used item analysis and exploratory factor analysis to validate the scale and test its reliability.

Results

The initial item pool had 54 items. After the expert review, three items were deleted. After the item analysis, 16 additional items were deleted. Exploratory factor analysis of the remaining items revealed four factors labeled – “Attitudes towards Down syndrome and Screening Tests,” “Important others’ Attitudes towards Down Syndrome,” “Influence of Important Others on Decision-Making,” and “Influence of Social Media on Decision-Making” – and 16 of the remaining items had satisfactory loadings on those factors, explaining 72.0% of the total variance. The Cronbach’s α values of the dimensions ranged between 0.75 and 0.90, demonstrating satisfactory internal reliability.

Conclusions

The scale has satisfactory validity and reliability, and can be used to understand pregnant women’s attitudes and decision-making regarding Down syndrome screening and diagnosis, and to help design tailored consultations for pregnant women in clinical settings.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
Important others refer to spouse, significant other, family members, relatives, and friends.
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference Chitty LS. Antenatal screening for aneuploidy. Current Opinion Obstet Gynecol. 1998;10:91–6.CrossRef Chitty LS. Antenatal screening for aneuploidy. Current Opinion Obstet Gynecol. 1998;10:91–6.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Grant SS. Options for Down syndrome screening: what will women choose? J Midwifery Women’s Health. 2005;50:211–8.CrossRef Grant SS. Options for Down syndrome screening: what will women choose? J Midwifery Women’s Health. 2005;50:211–8.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference St-Jacques S, Grenier S, Charland M, Forest JC, Rousseau F, Legare F. Decisional needs assessment regarding Down syndrome prenatal testing: a systematic review of the perceptions of women, their partners and health professionals. Prenat Diagn. 2008;28:1183–203.CrossRef St-Jacques S, Grenier S, Charland M, Forest JC, Rousseau F, Legare F. Decisional needs assessment regarding Down syndrome prenatal testing: a systematic review of the perceptions of women, their partners and health professionals. Prenat Diagn. 2008;28:1183–203.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Asch A. Prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion: a challenge to practice and policy. Am J Public Health. 1999;89:1649–57.CrossRef Asch A. Prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion: a challenge to practice and policy. Am J Public Health. 1999;89:1649–57.CrossRef
5.
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;115:235–9.CrossRef 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;115:235–9.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Kobelka C, Mattman A, Langlois S. An evaluation of the decision-making process regarding amniocentesis following a screen-positive maternal serum screen result. Prenat Diagn. 2009;29:514–9.CrossRef Kobelka C, Mattman A, Langlois S. An evaluation of the decision-making process regarding amniocentesis following a screen-positive maternal serum screen result. Prenat Diagn. 2009;29:514–9.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Gagnon S, Labrecque M, Njoya M, Rousseau F, St-Jacques S, Legare F. How much do family physicians involve pregnant women in decisions about prenatal screening for Down syndrome? Prenat Diagn. 2010;30:115–21.CrossRef Gagnon S, Labrecque M, Njoya M, Rousseau F, St-Jacques S, Legare F. How much do family physicians involve pregnant women in decisions about prenatal screening for Down syndrome? Prenat Diagn. 2010;30:115–21.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Santalahti P, Hemminki E, Latikka AM, Ryynanen M. Women's decision-making in prenatal screening. Soc Sci Med. 1998;46:1067–76.CrossRef Santalahti P, Hemminki E, Latikka AM, Ryynanen M. Women's decision-making in prenatal screening. Soc Sci Med. 1998;46:1067–76.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Jaques AM, Sheffield LJ, Halliday JL. Informed choice in women attending private clinics to undergo first-trimester screening for Down syndrome. Prenat Diagn. 2005;25:656–64.CrossRef Jaques AM, Sheffield LJ, Halliday JL. Informed choice in women attending private clinics to undergo first-trimester screening for Down syndrome. Prenat Diagn. 2005;25:656–64.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Potter BK, O'Reilly N, Etchegary H, et al. Exploring informed choice in the context of prenatal testing: findings from a qualitative study. Health Exp. 2008;11:355–65.CrossRef Potter BK, O'Reilly N, Etchegary H, et al. Exploring informed choice in the context of prenatal testing: findings from a qualitative study. Health Exp. 2008;11:355–65.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Carroll JC, Brown JB, Reid AJ, Pugh P. Women's experience of maternal serum screening. Can Fam Physician. 2000;46:614–20.PubMedPubMedCentral Carroll JC, Brown JB, Reid AJ, Pugh P. Women's experience of maternal serum screening. Can Fam Physician. 2000;46:614–20.PubMedPubMedCentral
13.
go back to reference Reid B, Sinclair M, Barr O, Dobbs F, Crealey G. A meta-synthesis of pregnant women's decision-making processes with regard to antenatal screening for Down syndrome. Soc Sci Med. 2009;69:1561–73.CrossRef Reid B, Sinclair M, Barr O, Dobbs F, Crealey G. A meta-synthesis of pregnant women's decision-making processes with regard to antenatal screening for Down syndrome. Soc Sci Med. 2009;69:1561–73.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Shaw SW, Lin SY, Lin CH, et al. Second-trimester maternal serum quadruple test for Down syndrome screening: a Taiwanese population-based study. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;49:30–4.CrossRef Shaw SW, Lin SY, Lin CH, et al. Second-trimester maternal serum quadruple test for Down syndrome screening: a Taiwanese population-based study. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;49:30–4.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Malone FD, Canick JA, Ball RH, et al. First-trimester or second-trimester screening, or both, for Down's syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:2001–11.CrossRef Malone FD, Canick JA, Ball RH, et al. First-trimester or second-trimester screening, or both, for Down's syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:2001–11.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Lan RY, Chou CT, Wang PH, Chen RC, Hsiao CH. Trisomy 21 screening based on first and second trimester in a Taiwanese population. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;57:551–4.CrossRef Lan RY, Chou CT, Wang PH, Chen RC, Hsiao CH. Trisomy 21 screening based on first and second trimester in a Taiwanese population. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;57:551–4.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Choi H, Van Riper M, Thoyre S. Decision making following a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome: an integrative review. J Midwifery Women’s Health. 2012;57:156–64.CrossRef Choi H, Van Riper M, Thoyre S. Decision making following a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome: an integrative review. J Midwifery Women’s Health. 2012;57:156–64.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Reed AR, Berrier KL. A qualitative study of factors influencing decision-making after prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. J Genet Couns. 2017;26:814–28.CrossRef Reed AR, Berrier KL. A qualitative study of factors influencing decision-making after prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. J Genet Couns. 2017;26:814–28.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Lou S, Carstensen K, Petersen OB, et al. Termination of pregnancy following a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome: a qualitative study of the decision-making process of pregnant couples. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018;97:1228–36.CrossRef Lou S, Carstensen K, Petersen OB, et al. Termination of pregnancy following a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome: a qualitative study of the decision-making process of pregnant couples. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018;97:1228–36.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Seror V, L'Haridon O, Bussieres L, et al. Women's attitudes toward invasive and noninvasive testing when facing a high risk of fetal Down syndrome. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2:e191062.CrossRef Seror V, L'Haridon O, Bussieres L, et al. Women's attitudes toward invasive and noninvasive testing when facing a high risk of fetal Down syndrome. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2:e191062.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Chiang H-H, Chao Y-M, Yuh Y-S. Informed choice of pregnant women in prenatal screening tests for Down's syndrome. J Med Ethics. 2006;32:273–7.CrossRef Chiang H-H, Chao Y-M, Yuh Y-S. Informed choice of pregnant women in prenatal screening tests for Down's syndrome. J Med Ethics. 2006;32:273–7.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Creswell JW. A concise introduction to mixed methods research: sage publications; 2014. Creswell JW. A concise introduction to mixed methods research: sage publications; 2014.
23.
go back to reference Lewis. Development and validation of a measure of informed choice for women undergoing non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;24(6):809–16.CrossRef Lewis. Development and validation of a measure of informed choice for women undergoing non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;24(6):809–16.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Lau TK. Commentary on Down syndrome screening in China. BJOG. 2016;123(Suppl 3):30.CrossRef Lau TK. Commentary on Down syndrome screening in China. BJOG. 2016;123(Suppl 3):30.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Wu M-L, Tu C-T. SPSS & the Application and Analysis of Statistics. 2nd ed: Wu-Nan Book Inc; 2012. Wu M-L, Tu C-T. SPSS & the Application and Analysis of Statistics. 2nd ed: Wu-Nan Book Inc; 2012.
26.
31.
go back to reference Sayakhot P, Carolan-Olah M. Internet use by pregnant women seeking pregnancy-related information: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16:65.CrossRef Sayakhot P, Carolan-Olah M. Internet use by pregnant women seeking pregnancy-related information: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16:65.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Stacey D, Legare F, Lewis K, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:Cd001431.PubMed Stacey D, Legare F, Lewis K, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:Cd001431.PubMed
33.
go back to reference Vlemmix F, Warendorf JK, Rosman AN, et al. Decision aids to improve informed decision-making in pregnancy care: a systematic review. BJOG. 2013;120:257–66.CrossRef Vlemmix F, Warendorf JK, Rosman AN, et al. Decision aids to improve informed decision-making in pregnancy care: a systematic review. BJOG. 2013;120:257–66.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Portocarrero ME, Giguere AM, Lepine J, et al. Use of a patient decision aid for prenatal screening for Down syndrome: what do pregnant women say? BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17:90.CrossRef Portocarrero ME, Giguere AM, Lepine J, et al. Use of a patient decision aid for prenatal screening for Down syndrome: what do pregnant women say? BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17:90.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Pregnant women’s attitudes and decision-making regarding prenatal Down syndrome screening and diagnosis: scale development and validation
Authors
Wei-Hsiang Huang
Shu-Fang Shih
Chen-Li Lin
Chieh-Hsing Liu
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Trisomy 21
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-03093-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2020 Go to the issue