Exploring Women’s Experiences of Amniocentesis: A Qualitative Content Analysis

Jaruwan Kownaklai, Umaporn Kuasit, Nanthiya Thaicharoen

Abstract


Background: The decision and experience of high‑risk pregnant women to undergo amniocentesis can depend on their setting, context, social structures, and significant others, including cultural values and beliefs. What is less understood is women’s experience with decision‑making, which may contribute to their anxiety during and after amniocentesis. This study aimed to explore the decision‑making experiences of Thai pregnant women undergoing amniocentesis.

Materials and Methods: A qualitative content analysis approach was employed to collect and analyze data. Purposive sampling and in‑depth interviews were conducted between July and October 2021 with 15 Thai high‑risk pregnant women after undergoing amniocentesis. Data analysis involved multiple readings of transcriptions to discern themes and understanding of the women’s stories.

Results: Four themes of decision‑making experiences were identified: (1) “Shocked, worried, and questioned why the risk was high”; (2) “Does my baby have Down syndrome? I want to know”; (3) “Worried”; and (4) “Relief from anxiety.”

Conclusions: Women’s experiences with amniocentesis involved uncertain positive and negative feelings through the journey of undergoing, waiting, and receiving the test results. The nurses and nurse‑midwives played an important role in counseling Thai pregnant women about whether to undergo amniocentesis.


Keywords


Amniocentesis, life experience, maternal serum screening test, nurse‑midwives, qualitative research

Full Text:

PDF

References


Fretts RC. Effects of advanced maternal age on pregnancy. In: Wilkins-Haug L, editor. 2017a. Available from: https://www. uptodate.com/contents/effects-of-advanced-maternal-age-on-pregnancy. [Last accessed 2023 Oct 20].

Fretts RC. Management of pregnancy in women of advanced age. In: Wilkins-Haug L, editors. Effects of Advanced Maternal Age on Pregnancy. 2017b. Available from: https:// www.uptodate.com/contents/management-of-pregnancy-in-women-of-advanced-age. [Last accessed 2023 Oct 20].

Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK. Births in the United States, 2015. NCHS Data Brief, No. 258. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2016.

Wasan P, Metabolic-Generic in Pediatrics Textbook, 1st ed: Bangkok: the Faculty of Siriraj Medicine, Mahidol University. 2017.

Wiwanitkit V. Costeffectiveness analysis for triple markers serum screening for Down’s syndrome in Thai setting. Indian J Hum Genet 2014;20153-4.

Manothai S. Screening in obstetrics. In: Tanniran Y, Phupong W, and Kovavisarach E, editors. Maternal-fetal medicine. 3rd ed. Bangkok: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Thailand; 2012.

Suthantikorn C. A counseling program before amniocentesis for pregnant women, Charoenkrung Pracharak Hospital. Bangkok. 2017.

Grinshpun-Cohen J, Miron-Shatz T, Berkenstet M, Pras E. The limited effect of information on Israeli pregnant women at advanced maternal age who decide to undergo amniocentesis. Isr J Health Policy Res 2015;4:1-8. doi: 10.1186/s13584-015-0019-6.

Grinshpun-Cohen J, Miron-Shatz T, Ries-Levavi L, Pras E. Factors that affect the decision to undergo amniocentesis in women with normal Down syndrome screening results: It is all about the age. Health Expect 2015;18:2306-17.

Kanay Y, Ayflegül K. The factors affecting amniocentesis decision by pregnant women in the risk group and the influence of consultant. Perinatal J 2019;27:6-13.

Grinshpun-Cohen J, Miron-Shatz T, Rhee-Morris L, Briscoe B, Pras E, Towner D. A priori attitudes predict amniocentesis uptake in women of advanced maternal age: A pilot study. J Health Commun 2015;20:1107-13.

Di Mattei V, Ferrari F, Perego G, Tobia V, Mauro F, Candiani M. Decision-making factors in prenatal testing: A systematic review. Health Psychol Open 2021;8:2055102920987455. doi: 10.1177/2055102920987455.

Lehmann LS. How can we improve amniocentesis decision-making? Isr J Health Policy Res 2016;5. doi: 10.1186/s13584-016-0060-0.

Chen A, Tenhunen H, Torkki P, Heinonen S, Lillrank P, Stefanovic V. Considering medical risk information and communicating values: A mixed-method study of women’s choice in prenatal testing. PLoS One 2017;12:1-15. doi: 10.1371/ journal.pone.0173669.

Beulen L, Grutters JPC, Faas BHW, Geenstra I, Grownewoud H, van Vugt JMG, et al. Women’s and healthcare professionals’ preferences for prenatal testing: A discrete choice experiment. Prenat Diagn 2015;35:549-57.

Chen A, Tenhunen H, Torkki P, Peltokorpi A, Heinonen S, Lillrank P, et al. Facilitating autonomous, confident and satisfying choices: A mixed-method study of women’s choice-making in prenatal screening for common aneuploidies. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 20148;18:1-13. doi: 10.1186/s12884-018-1752-y.

van Schendel RV, Page-Christiaens GCL, Beulen L, Bilardo CM, de Boer MA, Coumans AB, et al. (2016). Trial by Dutch laboratories for evaluation of non-invasive prenatal testing. Part II-Women’s perspectives. Prenat Diagn 2016;36:1091-8.

Lund ICB, Becher N, Petersen OB, Hill M, Chitty L, Vogel I. Preferences for prenatal testing among pregnant women, partners and health professionals. Dan Med J 2018;65:A5486.

Seror V, L’Haridon O, Bussières L, Malan V, Fries N, Vekemans M, Ville Y. Women’s attitudes toward invasive and noninvasive testing when facing a high risk of fetal Down syndrome. JAMA Network Open 2019;2:e191062. doi: 10.1001/ jamanetworkopen.2019.1062.

Creswell JW. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. 3rd ed. USA: SAGE Publications Inc; 2009.

Parahoo K. Nursing Research: Principles, Process and Issues. 3rd ed. Palgrave Macmillan, London; 2014.

Poland BD. Transcription quality. In: Gubrium JF, Holstein JA, editors. Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Method. London: SAGE Publications; 2001. p. 629-47.

Patton MQ. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2002.

Williamson K, Johanson G. Research Methods, Information, Systems, and Contexts. 2nd ed. Chandos Publishing Publication, 2018.

Downe-Wamboldt B. Content analysis: Method, applications, and Issues. Health Care for Women Int 1992;13:313-21.

Vaismoradi M, Turunen H, Bondas T. Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs Health Sci 2013;15:398-405.

Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs 2008;62:107-15.

Giorgi A. Description versus interpretation: Competing alternative strategies for qualitative research. J Phenomeno Psych 1992;23:19-135.

Holloway I, Todres L. The status of method: Flexibility, consistency and coherence. In: Holloway I, editor. Qualitative Research in Health Care. 1st ed. Berkshire: Open University Press; 2005. p. 90-102.

Lewis C, Hill M, Silcock C, Dailey R, Chitty LS. Non-invasive prenatal testing for trisomy 21: A cross-sectional survey of service users’ views and likely uptake. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 2014;121:582-94.

Miltoft CB, Rode L, Tabor A. Positive view and increased likely uptake of follow-up testing with analysis of cell-free fetal DNA as alternative to invasive testing among Danish pregnant women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2018;97:577-86.

Ternby E, Ingvoldstad C, Anneren 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;94:329-32.

Ternby E, Axelsson O, Annerén G, Lindgren P, Ingvoldstad C. Why do pregnant women accept or decline prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome? J Community Genet 2016;7:237-42.

Verweij EJ, Oepkes D, De Vries M, van den Akker ME, van den Akker ES, de Boer MA. Non-invasive prenatal screening for trisomy 21: What women want and are willing to pay. Patient Educ Couns 2013;93:641-45.

Wessels TM, Koole T, Penn C. ‘And then you can decide’ – antenatal foetal diagnosis decision making in South Africa. Health Expect 2014;18:3313-32.

Skutilova V. Knowledge, attitudes and decision-making in Czech women with atypical results of prenatal screening tests for the most common chromosomal and morphological congenital defects in the fetus: Selected questionnaire results. Biomed Papers 2015;159:156-62.

Titilayo TA, Matthew M, Marie-Pierre G, France L. Theory-based approach to developing an implementation plan to support the adoption of a patient decision aid for Down syndrome prenatal screening. Implement Sci 2021;16:56.

Farrell RM, Agatisa PK, Nutter B. What women want: Lead considerations for current and future applications of noninvasive prenatal testing in prenatal care. Birth 2014;41:276-82.

Lewis C, Hill M, Chitty LS. A qualitative study looking at informed choice in the context of non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy. Prenat Diagn 2016;36:875-81.

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;33:449-56.

Lamlertkittikul S, Chandeying V. Experience on triple markers serum screening for Down’s syndrome fetus in Hat Yai, Regional Hospital. J Med Assoc Thai 2007;90:1970 6.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.