Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2014

Open Access 01-12-2014 | Research article

‘Ultrasound is an invaluable third eye, but it can’t see everything’: a qualitative study with obstetricians in Australia

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

Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Issue 1/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Obstetric ultrasound has come to play a significant role in obstetrics since its introduction in clinical care. Today, most pregnant women in the developed world are exposed to obstetric ultrasound examinations, and there is no doubt that the advantages of obstetric ultrasound technique have led to improvements in pregnancy outcomes. However, at the same time, the increasing use has also raised many ethical challenges. This study aimed to explore obstetricians’ experiences of the significance of obstetric ultrasound for clinical management of complicated pregnancy and their perceptions of expectant parents’ experiences.

Methods

A qualitative study was undertaken in November 2012 as part of the CROss-Country Ultrasound Study (CROCUS). Semi-structured individual interviews were held with 14 obstetricians working at two large hospitals in Victoria, Australia. Transcribed data underwent qualitative content analysis.

Results

An overall theme emerged during the analyses, ‘Obstetric ultrasound - a third eye’, reflecting the significance and meaning of ultrasound in pregnancy, and the importance of the additional information that ultrasound offers clinicians managing the surveillance of a pregnant woman and her fetus. This theme was built on four categories: I:‘Everyday-tool’ for pregnancy surveillance, II: Significance for managing complicated pregnancy, III: Differing perspectives on obstetric ultrasound, and IV: Counselling as a balancing act. In summary, the obstetricians viewed obstetric ultrasound as an invaluable tool in their everyday practice. More importantly however, the findings emphasise some of the clinical dilemmas that occur due to its use: the obstetricians’ and expectant parents’ differing perspectives and expectations of obstetric ultrasound examinations, the challenges of uncertain ultrasound findings, and how this information was conveyed and balanced by obstetricians in counselling expectant parents.

Conclusions

This study highlights a range of previously rarely acknowledged clinical dilemmas that obstetricians face in relation to the use of obstetric ultrasound. Despite being a tool of considerable significance in the surveillance of pregnancy, there are limitations and uncertainties that arise with its use that make counselling expectant parents challenging. Research is needed which further investigates the effects and experiences of the continuing worldwide rapid technical advances in surveillance of pregnancies.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Nicolson M, Fleming JEE: Imaging and imagining the fetus: the development of obstetric ultrasound. 2013, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press Nicolson M, Fleming JEE: Imaging and imagining the fetus: the development of obstetric ultrasound. 2013, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press
2.
go back to reference Garcia J, Bricker L, Henderson J, Martin MA, Mugford M, Nielson J, Roberts T: Women’s views of pregnancy ultrasound: a systematic review. Birth. 2002, 29 (4): 225-250. 10.1046/j.1523-536X.2002.00198.x.CrossRefPubMed Garcia J, Bricker L, Henderson J, Martin MA, Mugford M, Nielson J, Roberts T: Women’s views of pregnancy ultrasound: a systematic review. Birth. 2002, 29 (4): 225-250. 10.1046/j.1523-536X.2002.00198.x.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Seffah JD, Adanu RM: Obstetric ultrasonography in low-income countries. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2009, 52 (2): 250-255. 10.1097/GRF.0b013e3181a4c2d5.CrossRefPubMed Seffah JD, Adanu RM: Obstetric ultrasonography in low-income countries. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2009, 52 (2): 250-255. 10.1097/GRF.0b013e3181a4c2d5.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Stanton K, Mwanri L: Global Maternal and Child Health Outcomes: the role of obstetric ultrasound in low resource settings. J Prev Med. 2013, 1 (3): 22-29. Stanton K, Mwanri L: Global Maternal and Child Health Outcomes: the role of obstetric ultrasound in low resource settings. J Prev Med. 2013, 1 (3): 22-29.
5.
go back to reference Eurenius K, Axelsson O, Cnattingius S, Eriksson L, Norsted T: Second trimester ultrasound screening performed by midwives; sensitivity for detection of fetal anomalies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1999, 78 (2): 98-104. 10.1080/j.1600-0412.1999.780205.x.CrossRefPubMed Eurenius K, Axelsson O, Cnattingius S, Eriksson L, Norsted T: Second trimester ultrasound screening performed by midwives; sensitivity for detection of fetal anomalies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1999, 78 (2): 98-104. 10.1080/j.1600-0412.1999.780205.x.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Whitworth M, Bricker L, Neilson JP, Dowswell T: Ultrasound for fetal assessment in early pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010, 4: CD007058-PubMed Whitworth M, Bricker L, Neilson JP, Dowswell T: Ultrasound for fetal assessment in early pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010, 4: CD007058-PubMed
7.
go back to reference Alfirevic Z, Stampalija T, Gyte GM: Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in high-risk pregnancies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013, 11: CD007529-PubMed Alfirevic Z, Stampalija T, Gyte GM: Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in high-risk pregnancies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013, 11: CD007529-PubMed
8.
go back to reference 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. 10.1023/A:1013837511115.CrossRefPubMed 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. 10.1023/A:1013837511115.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Leung JL, Pang SM: Ethical analysis of non-medical fetal ultrasound. Nurs Ethics. 2009, 16 (5): 637-646. 10.1177/0969733009106655.CrossRefPubMed Leung JL, Pang SM: Ethical analysis of non-medical fetal ultrasound. Nurs Ethics. 2009, 16 (5): 637-646. 10.1177/0969733009106655.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Nie JB: Non-medical sex-selective abortion in China: ethical and public policy issues in the context of 40 million missing females. Br Med Bull. 2011, 98: 7-20. 10.1093/bmb/ldr015.CrossRefPubMed Nie JB: Non-medical sex-selective abortion in China: ethical and public policy issues in the context of 40 million missing females. Br Med Bull. 2011, 98: 7-20. 10.1093/bmb/ldr015.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Jha P, Kesler MA, Kumar R, Ram F, Ram U, Aleksandrowicz L, Bassani DG, Chandra S, Banthia JK: Trends in selective abortions of girls in India: analysis of nationally representative birth histories from 1990 to 2005 and census data from 1991 to 2011. Lancet. 2011, 377 (9781): 1921-1928. 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60649-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Jha P, Kesler MA, Kumar R, Ram F, Ram U, Aleksandrowicz L, Bassani DG, Chandra S, Banthia JK: Trends in selective abortions of girls in India: analysis of nationally representative birth histories from 1990 to 2005 and census data from 1991 to 2011. Lancet. 2011, 377 (9781): 1921-1928. 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60649-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Dickens BM, Cook RJ: Multiple pregnancy: legal and ethical issues. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2008, 103 (3): 270-274. 10.1016/j.ijgo.2008.08.006.CrossRefPubMed Dickens BM, Cook RJ: Multiple pregnancy: legal and ethical issues. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2008, 103 (3): 270-274. 10.1016/j.ijgo.2008.08.006.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Bricker L, Garcia J, Henderson J, Mugford M, Neilson J, Roberts T, Martin MA: 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. 1–193PubMed Bricker L, Garcia J, Henderson J, Mugford M, Neilson J, Roberts T, Martin MA: 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. 1–193PubMed
14.
go back to reference Molander E, Alehagen S, Bertero CM: Routine ultrasound examination during pregnancy: a world of possibilities. Midwifery. 2010, 26 (1): 18-26. 10.1016/j.midw.2008.04.008.CrossRefPubMed Molander E, Alehagen S, Bertero CM: Routine ultrasound examination during pregnancy: a world of possibilities. Midwifery. 2010, 26 (1): 18-26. 10.1016/j.midw.2008.04.008.CrossRefPubMed
15.
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): 335-344. 10.1016/j.midw.2004.02.001.CrossRefPubMed 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): 335-344. 10.1016/j.midw.2004.02.001.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Georgsson Ohman S, Waldenstrom U: Second-trimester routine ultrasound screening: expectations and experiences in a nationwide Swedish sample. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008, 32 (1): 15-22. 10.1002/uog.5273.CrossRefPubMed Georgsson Ohman S, Waldenstrom U: Second-trimester routine ultrasound screening: expectations and experiences in a nationwide Swedish sample. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008, 32 (1): 15-22. 10.1002/uog.5273.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference 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. 10.1016/j.pec.2009.12.011.CrossRefPubMed 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. 10.1016/j.pec.2009.12.011.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Healy J, Sharman E, Lokuge B: Australia Health system review. Health Systems in Transition Vol 8 No 5. 2006, Copenhagen: European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies Healy J, Sharman E, Lokuge B: Australia Health system review. Health Systems in Transition Vol 8 No 5. 2006, Copenhagen: European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies
20.
go back to reference The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists: Standards of maternity care in Australia and New Zealand. 2011, East Melbourne, Victoria: RANZCOG Publications The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists: Standards of maternity care in Australia and New Zealand. 2011, East Melbourne, Victoria: RANZCOG Publications
21.
go back to reference Bonacquisto L: Antenatal screening - the first and second trimester. Aust Fam Physician. 2011, 40 (10): 785-787.PubMed Bonacquisto L: Antenatal screening - the first and second trimester. Aust Fam Physician. 2011, 40 (10): 785-787.PubMed
22.
go back to reference 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): 619-624. 10.1002/uog.4023.CrossRefPubMed 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): 619-624. 10.1002/uog.4023.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Saumure K, Given LM: Data saturation. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Edited by: Given LM. 2008, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, 196-197. Saumure K, Given LM: Data saturation. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Edited by: Given LM. 2008, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, 196-197.
24.
go back to reference Graneheim UH, Lundman B: Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004, 24 (2): 105-112. 10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001.CrossRefPubMed Graneheim UH, Lundman B: Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004, 24 (2): 105-112. 10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Kohut RJ, Dewey D, Love EJ: Women’s knowledge of prenatal ultrasound and informed choice. J Genet Couns. 2002, 11 (4): 265-276. 10.1023/A:1016378415514.CrossRefPubMed Kohut RJ, Dewey D, Love EJ: Women’s knowledge of prenatal ultrasound and informed choice. J Genet Couns. 2002, 11 (4): 265-276. 10.1023/A:1016378415514.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Dahl K, Kesmodel U, Hvidman L, Olesen F: Informed consent: attitudes, knowledge and information concerning prenatal examinations. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006, 85 (12): 1414-1419. 10.1080/00016340600985164.CrossRefPubMed Dahl K, Kesmodel U, Hvidman L, Olesen F: Informed consent: attitudes, knowledge and information concerning prenatal examinations. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006, 85 (12): 1414-1419. 10.1080/00016340600985164.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Lalor JG, Devane D: Information, knowledge and expectations of the routine ultrasound scan. Midwifery. 2007, 23 (1): 13-22. 10.1016/j.midw.2006.02.001.CrossRefPubMed Lalor JG, Devane D: Information, knowledge and expectations of the routine ultrasound scan. Midwifery. 2007, 23 (1): 13-22. 10.1016/j.midw.2006.02.001.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Tucker Edmonds B, Krasny S, Srinivas S, Shea J: Obstetric decision-making and counseling at the limits of viability. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012, 206 (3): 248-e241-245CrossRefPubMed Tucker Edmonds B, Krasny S, Srinivas S, Shea J: Obstetric decision-making and counseling at the limits of viability. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012, 206 (3): 248-e241-245CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Grobman WA, Kavanaugh K, Moro T, DeRegnier RA, Savage T: Providing advice to parents for women at acutely high risk of periviable delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2010, 115 (5): 904-909. 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181da93a7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Grobman WA, Kavanaugh K, Moro T, DeRegnier RA, Savage T: Providing advice to parents for women at acutely high risk of periviable delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2010, 115 (5): 904-909. 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181da93a7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
go back to reference Lalor J, Begley C: Fetal anomaly screening: what do women want to know?. J Adv Nurs. 2006, 55 (1): 11-19. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03884.x.CrossRefPubMed Lalor J, Begley C: Fetal anomaly screening: what do women want to know?. J Adv Nurs. 2006, 55 (1): 11-19. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03884.x.CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Sommerseth E, Sundby J: Women’s experiences when ultrasound examinations give unexpected findings in the second trimester. Women Birth. 2010, 23 (3): 111-116. 10.1016/j.wombi.2010.01.001.CrossRefPubMed Sommerseth E, Sundby J: Women’s experiences when ultrasound examinations give unexpected findings in the second trimester. Women Birth. 2010, 23 (3): 111-116. 10.1016/j.wombi.2010.01.001.CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Cash R, Manogaran M, Sroka H, Okun N: An assessment of women’s knowledge of and views on the reporting of ultrasound soft markers during the routine anatomy ultrasound examination. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2010, 32 (2): 120-125.CrossRefPubMed Cash R, Manogaran M, Sroka H, Okun N: An assessment of women’s knowledge of and views on the reporting of ultrasound soft markers during the routine anatomy ultrasound examination. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2010, 32 (2): 120-125.CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Simonsen SE, Branch DW, Rose NC: The complexity of fetal imaging: reconciling clinical care with patient entertainment. Obstet Gynecol. 2008, 112 (6): 1351-1354. 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31818f0c0c.CrossRefPubMed Simonsen SE, Branch DW, Rose NC: The complexity of fetal imaging: reconciling clinical care with patient entertainment. Obstet Gynecol. 2008, 112 (6): 1351-1354. 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31818f0c0c.CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Taylor JS: The Public Life of the Fetal Sonogram. 2008, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press Taylor JS: The Public Life of the Fetal Sonogram. 2008, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press
36.
go back to reference Voelker R: The business of baby pictures: controversy brews over “keepsake” fetal ultrasounds. Jama. 2005, 293 (1): 25-27.CrossRefPubMed Voelker R: The business of baby pictures: controversy brews over “keepsake” fetal ultrasounds. Jama. 2005, 293 (1): 25-27.CrossRefPubMed
37.
go back to reference Van den Hof MC, Bly S, Society of O: Non-medical use of fetal ultrasound. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2007, 29 (4): 364-367.CrossRefPubMed Van den Hof MC, Bly S, Society of O: Non-medical use of fetal ultrasound. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2007, 29 (4): 364-367.CrossRefPubMed
38.
go back to reference Abramowicz J, Brezinka C, Salvesen K, ter Haar G: ISUOG Statement on the non-medical use of ultrasound, 2009. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009, 33 (5): 617-CrossRef Abramowicz J, Brezinka C, Salvesen K, ter Haar G: ISUOG Statement on the non-medical use of ultrasound, 2009. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009, 33 (5): 617-CrossRef
39.
go back to reference The World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology: WFUMB policy and statements on safety of ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2013, 39 (5): 926-929.CrossRef The World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology: WFUMB policy and statements on safety of ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2013, 39 (5): 926-929.CrossRef
40.
go back to reference The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: ACOG Committee Opinion. Number 297, August 2004. Nonmedical use of obstetric ultrasonography. Obstet Gynecol. 2004, 104 (2): 423-424. 10.1097/00006250-200408000-00049.CrossRef The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: ACOG Committee Opinion. Number 297, August 2004. Nonmedical use of obstetric ultrasonography. Obstet Gynecol. 2004, 104 (2): 423-424. 10.1097/00006250-200408000-00049.CrossRef
42.
go back to reference Santalahti P, Aro AR, Hemminki E, Helenius H, Ryynanen M: On what grounds do women participate in prenatal screening?. Prenat Diagn. 1998, 18 (2): 153-165. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0223(199802)18:2<153::AID-PD240>3.0.CO;2-Z.CrossRefPubMed Santalahti P, Aro AR, Hemminki E, Helenius H, Ryynanen M: On what grounds do women participate in prenatal screening?. Prenat Diagn. 1998, 18 (2): 153-165. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0223(199802)18:2<153::AID-PD240>3.0.CO;2-Z.CrossRefPubMed
43.
go back to reference Abramowicz JS: Benefits and risks of ultrasound in pregnancy. Semin Perinatol. 2013, 37 (5): 295-300. 10.1053/j.semperi.2013.06.004.CrossRefPubMed Abramowicz JS: Benefits and risks of ultrasound in pregnancy. Semin Perinatol. 2013, 37 (5): 295-300. 10.1053/j.semperi.2013.06.004.CrossRefPubMed
44.
go back to reference Sheiner E, Shoham-Vardi I, Abramowicz JS: What do clinical users know regarding safety of ultrasound during pregnancy?. J Ultrasound Med. 2007, 26 (3): 319-325. quiz 326–317PubMed Sheiner E, Shoham-Vardi I, Abramowicz JS: What do clinical users know regarding safety of ultrasound during pregnancy?. J Ultrasound Med. 2007, 26 (3): 319-325. quiz 326–317PubMed
45.
go back to reference Marsal K: The output display standard: has it missed its target?. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005, 25 (3): 211-214. 10.1002/uog.1864.CrossRefPubMed Marsal K: The output display standard: has it missed its target?. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005, 25 (3): 211-214. 10.1002/uog.1864.CrossRefPubMed
46.
go back to reference Torloni MR, Vedmedovska N, Merialdi M, Betran AP, Allen T, Gonzalez R, Platt LD: Safety of ultrasonography in pregnancy: WHO systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009, 33 (5): 599-608. 10.1002/uog.6328.CrossRefPubMed Torloni MR, Vedmedovska N, Merialdi M, Betran AP, Allen T, Gonzalez R, Platt LD: Safety of ultrasonography in pregnancy: WHO systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009, 33 (5): 599-608. 10.1002/uog.6328.CrossRefPubMed
47.
go back to reference Salvesen KA: Ultrasound in pregnancy and non-right handedness: meta-analysis of randomized trials. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011, 38 (3): 267-271. 10.1002/uog.9055.CrossRefPubMed Salvesen KA: Ultrasound in pregnancy and non-right handedness: meta-analysis of randomized trials. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011, 38 (3): 267-271. 10.1002/uog.9055.CrossRefPubMed
48.
go back to reference Marsal K: Exposure to ultrasound in utero: epidemiology and relevance of neuronal migration studies. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2010, 36 (8): 1221-1223. 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2010.03.009.CrossRefPubMed Marsal K: Exposure to ultrasound in utero: epidemiology and relevance of neuronal migration studies. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2010, 36 (8): 1221-1223. 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2010.03.009.CrossRefPubMed
49.
go back to reference Ang ES, Gluncic V, Duque A, Schafer ME, Rakic P: Prenatal exposure to ultrasound waves impacts neuronal migration in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006, 103 (34): 12903-12910. 10.1073/pnas.0605294103.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ang ES, Gluncic V, Duque A, Schafer ME, Rakic P: Prenatal exposure to ultrasound waves impacts neuronal migration in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006, 103 (34): 12903-12910. 10.1073/pnas.0605294103.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
50.
go back to reference McIntyre HD, Gibbons KS, Flenady VJ, Callaway LK: Overweight and obesity in Australian mothers: epidemic or endemic?. Med J Aust. 2012, 196 (3): 184-188. 10.5694/mja11.11120.CrossRefPubMed McIntyre HD, Gibbons KS, Flenady VJ, Callaway LK: Overweight and obesity in Australian mothers: epidemic or endemic?. Med J Aust. 2012, 196 (3): 184-188. 10.5694/mja11.11120.CrossRefPubMed
51.
go back to reference Weichert J, Hartge DR: Obstetrical sonography in obese women: a review. J Clin Ultrasound. 2011, 39 (4): 209-216. 10.1002/jcu.20767.CrossRefPubMed Weichert J, Hartge DR: Obstetrical sonography in obese women: a review. J Clin Ultrasound. 2011, 39 (4): 209-216. 10.1002/jcu.20767.CrossRefPubMed
52.
go back to reference Cedergren MI: Maternal morbid obesity and the risk of adverse pregnancy outcome. Obstet Gynecol. 2004, 103 (2): 219-224. 10.1097/01.AOG.0000107291.46159.00.CrossRefPubMed Cedergren MI: Maternal morbid obesity and the risk of adverse pregnancy outcome. Obstet Gynecol. 2004, 103 (2): 219-224. 10.1097/01.AOG.0000107291.46159.00.CrossRefPubMed
53.
go back to reference Stothard KJ, Tennant PW, Bell R, Rankin J: Maternal overweight and obesity and the risk of congenital anomalies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Jama. 2009, 301 (6): 636-650. 10.1001/jama.2009.113.CrossRefPubMed Stothard KJ, Tennant PW, Bell R, Rankin J: Maternal overweight and obesity and the risk of congenital anomalies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Jama. 2009, 301 (6): 636-650. 10.1001/jama.2009.113.CrossRefPubMed
54.
go back to reference Keely A, Gunning M, Denison F: Maternal obesity in pregnancy: Women’s understanding of risks. Br J Midwifery. 2011, 19 (6): 364-369. 10.12968/bjom.2011.19.6.364.CrossRef Keely A, Gunning M, Denison F: Maternal obesity in pregnancy: Women’s understanding of risks. Br J Midwifery. 2011, 19 (6): 364-369. 10.12968/bjom.2011.19.6.364.CrossRef
55.
go back to reference Nitert MD, Foxcroft KF, Lust K, Fagermo N, Lawlor DA, O’Callaghan M, McIntyre HD, Callaway LK: Overweight and obesity knowledge prior to pregnancy: a survey study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2011, 11: 96-10.1186/1471-2393-11-96.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Nitert MD, Foxcroft KF, Lust K, Fagermo N, Lawlor DA, O’Callaghan M, McIntyre HD, Callaway LK: Overweight and obesity knowledge prior to pregnancy: a survey study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2011, 11: 96-10.1186/1471-2393-11-96.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
56.
go back to reference Kominiarek MA, Vonderheid S, Endres LK: Maternal obesity: do patients understand the risks?. J Perinatol. 2010, 30 (7): 452-458. 10.1038/jp.2010.52.CrossRefPubMed Kominiarek MA, Vonderheid S, Endres LK: Maternal obesity: do patients understand the risks?. J Perinatol. 2010, 30 (7): 452-458. 10.1038/jp.2010.52.CrossRefPubMed
57.
go back to reference Shub A, Huning EY, Campbell KJ, McCarthy EA: Pregnant women’s knowledge of weight, weight gain, complications of obesity and weight management strategies in pregnancy. BMC Res Notes. 2013, 6: 278-10.1186/1756-0500-6-278.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Shub A, Huning EY, Campbell KJ, McCarthy EA: Pregnant women’s knowledge of weight, weight gain, complications of obesity and weight management strategies in pregnancy. BMC Res Notes. 2013, 6: 278-10.1186/1756-0500-6-278.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
58.
go back to reference Furber CM, McGowan L: A qualitative study of the experiences of women who are obese and pregnant in the UK. Midwifery. 2011, 27 (4): 437-444. 10.1016/j.midw.2010.04.001.CrossRefPubMed Furber CM, McGowan L: A qualitative study of the experiences of women who are obese and pregnant in the UK. Midwifery. 2011, 27 (4): 437-444. 10.1016/j.midw.2010.04.001.CrossRefPubMed
59.
go back to reference Heslehurst N, Russell S, McCormack S, Sedgewick G, Bell R, Rankin J: Midwives perspectives of their training and education requirements in maternal obesity: a qualitative study. Midwifery. 2013, 29 (7): 736-744. 10.1016/j.midw.2012.07.007.CrossRefPubMed Heslehurst N, Russell S, McCormack S, Sedgewick G, Bell R, Rankin J: Midwives perspectives of their training and education requirements in maternal obesity: a qualitative study. Midwifery. 2013, 29 (7): 736-744. 10.1016/j.midw.2012.07.007.CrossRefPubMed
60.
go back to reference Lindhardt CL, Rubak S, Mogensen O, Lamont RF, Joergensen JS: The experience of pregnant women with a body mass index >30 kg/m(2) of their encounters with healthcare professionals. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013, 92 (9): 1101-1107. 10.1111/aogs.12186.CrossRefPubMed Lindhardt CL, Rubak S, Mogensen O, Lamont RF, Joergensen JS: The experience of pregnant women with a body mass index >30 kg/m(2) of their encounters with healthcare professionals. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013, 92 (9): 1101-1107. 10.1111/aogs.12186.CrossRefPubMed
61.
go back to reference Nyman VM, Prebensen AK, Flensner GE: Obese women’s experiences of encounters with midwives and physicians during pregnancy and childbirth. Midwifery. 2010, 26 (4): 424-429. 10.1016/j.midw.2008.10.008.CrossRefPubMed Nyman VM, Prebensen AK, Flensner GE: Obese women’s experiences of encounters with midwives and physicians during pregnancy and childbirth. Midwifery. 2010, 26 (4): 424-429. 10.1016/j.midw.2008.10.008.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
‘Ultrasound is an invaluable third eye, but it can’t see everything’: a qualitative study with obstetricians in Australia
Authors
Kristina Edvardsson
Rhonda Small
Margareta Persson
Ann Lalos
Ingrid Mogren
Publication date
01-12-2014
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Issue 1/2014
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-14-363

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2014 Go to the issue