https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7142-9953
Figures
Abstract
Background
The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends one ultrasound scan before 24 weeks gestation as part of routine antenatal care (WHO 2016). We explored influences on provision and uptake through views and experiences of pregnant women, partners, and health workers.
Methods
We undertook a systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42021230926). We derived summaries of findings and overarching themes using metasynthesis methods. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SocIndex, LILACS, and AIM (Nov 25th 2020) for qualitative studies reporting views and experiences of routine ultrasound provision to 24 weeks gestation, with no language or date restriction. After quality assessment, data were logged and analysed in Excel. We assessed confidence in the findings using Grade-CERQual.
Findings
From 7076 hits, we included 80 papers (1994–2020, 23 countries, 16 LICs/MICs, over 1500 participants). We identified 17 review findings, (moderate or high confidence: 14/17), and four themes: sociocultural influences and expectations; the power of visual technology; joy and devastation: consequences of ultrasound findings; the significance of relationship in the ultrasound encounter. Providing or receiving ultrasound was positive for most, reportedly increasing parental-fetal engagement. However, abnormal findings were often shocking. Some reported changing future reproductive decisions after equivocal results, even when the eventual diagnosis was positive. Attitudes and behaviours of sonographers influenced service user experience. Ultrasound providers expressed concern about making mistakes, recognising their need for education, training, and adequate time with women. Ultrasound sex determination influenced female feticide in some contexts, in others, termination was not socially acceptable. Overuse was noted to reduce clinical antenatal skills as well as the use and uptake of other forms of antenatal care. These factors influenced utility and equity of ultrasound in some settings.
Conclusion
Though antenatal ultrasound was largely seen as positive, long-term adverse psychological and reproductive consequences were reported for some. Gender inequity may be reinforced by female feticide following ultrasound in some contexts. Provider attitudes and behaviours, time to engage fully with service users, social norms, access to follow up, and the potential for overuse all need to be considered.
Citation: Moncrieff G, Finlayson K, Cordey S, McCrimmon R, Harris C, Barreix M, et al. (2021) First and second trimester ultrasound in pregnancy: A systematic review and metasynthesis of the views and experiences of pregnant women, partners, and health workers. PLoS ONE 16(12): e0261096. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261096
Editor: Carla Betina Andreucci Polido, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, BRAZIL
Received: September 17, 2021; Accepted: November 22, 2021; Published: December 14, 2021
Copyright: © 2021 Moncrieff et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The work was commissioned to the University of Central Lancashire by the UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a cosponsored program executed by the World Health Organization (WHO). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Antenatal ultrasound is a routine and established component of antenatal care within high-income countries [1]. In low- and middle-income countries ultrasound scanning in pregnancy is more recent [2]. In many of these settings, provision is not universal [3], and it is often restricted to high level and/or private facilities, limiting access for many [2, 4]. In 2016, the World Health Organization first recommended ultrasound as a routine aspect of antenatal care [5]. This recommendation was for one ultrasound scan before 24 weeks gestation, to estimate gestational age, improve detection of fetal anomalies and multiple pregnancies, reduce induction of labour for post-term pregnancy, and improve a woman’s pregnancy experience. Part of the rationale for the establishment of this recommendation within guidelines was to better regulate the use of antenatal ultrasound, and to increase equitable access for pregnant women in low- and middle-income settings.
For many expectant parents, antenatal ultrasound provides a positive experience [6]. Health workers value its use for gestational age estimation, multiple pregnancy identification and assessment of physiological or potentially pathological fetal growth [1]. Identification of fetal anomalies is also an intrinsic part of ultrasound examination in early pregnancy [1]. As imaging has become more sophisticated, there has been increasing potential to identify markers of uncertain significance [7]. This can bring many benefits, but it has also resulted in concerns relating to overdiagnosis as well as the psychological risks for women, birthing people, and partners when the implications of these markers are not clear [8, 9]. Some have expressed eugenic concerns, as ultrasound-identified fetal abnormalities force parents to decide between giving birth to a child with disabilities, or termination [10], while in some social, cultural and religious contexts, termination is not an option [11]. In some social settings, ultrasound sex determination is associated with female feticide [12], and possibly sex distribution skew [13], raising moral, ethical, and gender equity issues.
Because of the rapid technical improvements in first and second trimester ultrasound, and the spread in routine use, the WHO recommended updating of their early ultrasound recommendation. This qualitative systematic review was carried out to inform the update, enabling the consideration of values and preferences, and acceptability, feasibility, and equity implications, and the opportunity to share insights into successful implementation and service provision. These considerations are integral to implementation of antenatal ultrasound where it is not yet a routine component of antenatal care, as well as the improvement of existing services.
We undertook a rapid scoping search of the existing literature but did not identify any previous systematic reviews of experiences of first and second trimester ultrasound that were suitable to inform WHO guidelines on this subject. There is one previous systematic review on experiences of antenatal ultrasound, but this was published in 2002. It did not include the perspectives of health workers, or studies from low- or middle-income countries [6].
To inform guidelines and practice in the area of first and second trimester ultrasound we aimed to examine the following questions, for maternity service users (including birth companions), health workers, policy makers and funders in all settings:
a. What views, beliefs, concerns and experiences have been reported in relation to routine ultrasound examination in pregnancy?
b. What are the influencing factors associated with appropriate or inappropriate use of routine antenatal ultrasound scanning?
Methods
Search strategy and selection criteria
We undertook a systematic review using thematic synthesis to develop our review findings and analytic themes [14]. The study protocol is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021230926).
Searches.
We undertook searches in Medline (Ovid), CINAHL, PsycINFO, and SocIndex (via EBSCO), and LILACS and AIM (via Global Index Medicus) on Nov 25th and 26th 2020, with no language or date restrictions. Additional relevant papers were identified through searching reference lists and citation searches of included studies. A log was used to record inclusion/exclusion at each stage of selection. One member of the review team (CH) undertook the searches, and de-duplication of results using both automated and manual methods in EndNote.
Inclusion criteria.
Our protocol specified searches for qualitative, survey, and mixed-methods studies. For this paper, we report on findings from qualitative studies. We included papers addressing routine use of ultrasound during antenatal care, including to detect fetal viability, gestational age, fetal growth, fetal abnormality, multiple pregnancy, and any other routine application, where this was a standard part of the routine ultrasound offer for the population in the country(ies) where the study was set.
Included participants were pregnant or postnatal women, families of such women, and related community members, antenatal health workers, managers, funders, or policy makers involved in the receipt, provision, management or funding of routine antenatal ultrasound scanning.
We included all settings (low-, high- and middle-income), and all types of health care design and provision (including public, private and mixed models of provision), and localities (hospital facilities, birth centres, or local communities).
Exclusion criteria.
We excluded papers if ultrasound was undertaken for specific indications, for example following IVF procedures, or after women’s reports of reduced fetal movements.
We excluded controlled studies, cohort studies, and epidemiological studies.
Screening.
Initial screening by title and abstract was refined through blind screening 100 records in two teams to ensure agreement in the screening process. Uncertainties were discussed amongst the review team, and a further 100 hits were then screened until sufficient agreement was reached. For full text screening, batches of ten records were screened in each team until sufficient agreement was reached, after which three members of the review team (GM, SC, RM) screened the remaining records independently.
Data extraction and analysis
Studies assessed as eligible for inclusion were quality assessed [15]. Quality assessment was undertaken by GM, SC, RM and KF. SD independently assessed 10% of studies to calibrate the assessments of the teams. Very low-quality studies were logged for transparency but were not included in the analysis.
The authors name, the date, characteristics, and setting of included papers, and the key findings, were logged on the study-specific Excel file. Translation of non-English studies was carried out using Google translate.
Analytic procedure.
We initially derived review findings and overarching themes using a thematic synthesis approach [14]. We started by logging themes and findings highlighted by the authors, or, where these were not clear, reviewer generated findings from the quote material and author narratives (GM, SC, RM). As each subsequent paper was coded, themes were generated (GM, KF, SD) and entered iteratively onto a separate worksheet of the study Excel file, resulting in an initial thematic framework. The findings continued to develop as the data from each paper were added. This included looking for what was similar between papers and for what contradicted (‘disconfirmed’) the review findings. All authors involved in the primary analysis (GM, KF, SD), consciously looked for data that would contradict our prior beliefs and views.
Confidence in each finding was assessed using GRADE-CERQual [16]. Review findings were graded using a classification system ranging from ‘high’ to ‘moderate’ to ‘low’ to ‘very low’ confidence. Following CERQual assessment the review findings were grouped into higher order analytic themes and the final framework was agreed by consensus amongst the authors.
Analysis of subgroups or subsets.
Findings were logged by country income status (HIC vs LMIC), and by trimester of scan (first, second, or both). Interpretation of the findings and themes includes these subgroups where they can be clearly differentiated in the data.
Reflexive statement.
Based on our collective and individual experiences (as midwives, academics, service users, and researchers), we anticipated that the findings of our review would reveal that women and their partners generally look forward to ultrasound but may be unprepared for it to reveal abnormalities; that health workers like to use it as it gives them a sense of certainty in diagnosis; and that policy makers and funders see it as a useful source of revenue and/or of attracting women to use facilities. We maintained awareness of these prior beliefs and their potential impact on our analysis to ensure we were not over-interpreting data that supported our prior beliefs, or over-looking disconfirming data.
Results
Of the 7076 records generated by our search,181 studies met the initial inclusion criteria to be included in our synthesis. 4656 records were excluded at the initial abstract screening stage, primarily because they were unrelated to the focus of this review. Full text screening excluded 574 studies, primarily because they did not focus on perceptions/experiences of routine ultrasound. Of the 181 studies initially identified as being eligible for inclusion, 80 were qualitative and 98 were quantitative or mixed methods studies. Due to the large number of qualitative papers identified, the decision was made to focus on the qualitative studies, and to analyse the qualitative/mixed methods studies separately. Eighty qualitative papers were therefore included before quality screening, and three more were identified from reference lists of the included papers. Following quality appraisal, 3 studies were rated D and excluded. Fig 1 outlines the screening and selection process.
Of the 80 studies included in our review, eight were rated A, 52 B, and 20 were rated C. They were published between 1994 and 2020 and were from 23 different countries, with 16 studies from LICs/MICs. They represent the views of over 1500 participants. The majority of papers reported the views of women or women and their partners; 19 reported provider perspectives; seven reported the views of both. There were no eligible studies that included the views of funders or policy makers. Study characteristics and quality appraisal grades are presented in Table 1.
Findings
Our analysis generated 17 review findings, synthesised into four over-arching analytic themes. Three findings represent the views of women and their partners only, three represent the views of healthcare professionals only, and 11 describe findings from both groups. Most were graded moderate or high confidence. The Summary of Findings and CERQual assessment are provided in Table 2.
Sociocultural influences and expectations. For many women, ultrasound was seen as an integral part of pregnancy and an opportunity not to be missed [17–26]. It offered parents the chance to ‘meet’ their baby and receive an image of the scan that they could share with friends and family [21, 25, 27, 28]. Fathers’ attendance was seen as a demonstration of their commitment to their family and to facilitate involvement with the pregnancy [19, 25, 28, 29–34]. For health workers however, these views sometimes conflicted with their role in providing a medical assessment and potential diagnosis [35–37]. It also sometimes conflicted with parent’s autonomy in terms of whether attending ultrasound was seen as a choice, or a decision to be made [17, 18, 21, 22, 38–42]. Some felt that they had not been offered an actual choice due to the routine nature of ultrasound in antenatal care, whilst others felt they should follow the authoritative advice of health professionals to ensure wellbeing of their baby [43–47]. In some contexts, healthcare professionals actively directed women towards ultrasound with the belief that this would inevitably result in better outcomes, and women were seen as irresponsible if they declined the offer of a scan [39, 44, 48–52].
‘Yes I’m sure it is (optional) but I think everybody else does it … well maybe not … but anyway I wouldn’t miss it.’ (Sweden) [25]
‘I don’t know if it is good or bad. They provide it for us so we use it.’ (Australia) [46]
‘The ones that choose not to are far more informed than the ones that choose to–because you have to go against the system.’ (Australia) [50]
In some low-income settings, access to ultrasound was limited due to lack of staff and other resources, as well as the costs incurred for women and the distance they would have to travel to attend appointments [53–56]. Some midwives in these contexts expressed the desire for training in the use of ultrasound, so that they could make decisions when other staff were not available [55, 57]. There were varying beliefs in relation to the safety of ultrasound as well as the diagnosis that could be made through its use [19, 34, 41, 49, 52, 58]. In some contexts, social and religious beliefs influenced the utility of a diagnosis if the only solution to a finding of fetal abnormality was termination [44, 59–61].
‘She [pregnant woman] didn’t go for ultrasound even though she was told to do so, she refused because of the cost.’ (Tanzania) [54]
’We perceive that it is not out our job, but our wish as midwives is to be able to perform ultrasound so that we can play a role in the mother’s care and make decisions without necessarily waiting for the availability of the doctor.’ (Rwanda) [55]
‘In our society it would be too late to do anything about that because the woman is not allowed, according to our religion, to have an abortion. Hence there is no point in doing tests during pregnancy. It’s only a waste of time, money and effort.’ (Israel) [60]
For some, beliefs about what was important to know during pregnancy, the value placed on ultrasound, and the impact of a diagnosis, appeared to be influenced by the vicarious experiences of friends, family and community members [17, 19, 28, 62, 63]. Information about the provision and nature of the ultrasound assessment appeared to also be mediated through community members in some cases, rather than healthcare professionals [29, 64, 65]. This extended to support after the scan which was often provided by friends and family [66–68].
’I needed help to sort out all my feelings and questions, my husband was a great support to me, but I would have liked to talk to my midwife.’ (Iceland) [65]
Finding out the fetal sex was important for respondents in a range of contexts, in terms of imaging their future baby, and practical planning [28, 45, 48, 68–70]. However, in some circumstances, this knowledge had negative consequences [30, 71]. As reported by both health workers and community members, this was particularly (but not only) apparent in cultures where there is a preference for male babies. In these contexts, the disclosure of female fetal sex through ultrasound could result in feticide [19, 53, 71, 72]. To avoid this potential outcome there was a policy of non-disclosure relating to fetal sex to avoid this outcome [19, 53, 54, 71, 72].
‘USG is done to know the sex of the child and then abortion is done if its female child.’ (India) [71]
There is this stigma between girls and boys, in some communities they want to know if it’s a boy or a girl so that they may be able to either prevent the pregnancy from going on.’ (Tanzania) [53]
‘… via USG people can know about sex of the baby and can get the girl child aborted.’ (India) [71]
The power of visual technology.
For most respondents, ultrasound was seen as central to antenatal care. Women generally trusted it as a valued technology that could provide confirmation of their pregnancy and reassurance of fetal wellbeing [19, 28, 30, 43, 64, 66, 73]. For providers, it was an important tool, particularly for the detection and management of complications [39, 43, 53, 57, 74–76]. However, some respondents reported that a reliance on ultrasound results in the potential for overuse, and consequent neglect of other forms of antenatal care [19, 53, 74]. Some participants felt compelled towards ultrasound to visualise their baby and for reassurance [19, 31, 43, 47, 61]. For some women and healthcare professionals, ultrasound held greater value than other forms of antenatal assessment. The overuse of ultrasound was felt to result in reduced clinical skills and the potential to miss complications that were not picked up through this form of assessment [38, 43, 48, 55, 74].
‘The scan is very necessary; there is no point in visiting the doctor without seeing the fetus and knowing how well it is doing. You would not benefit at all!’ (Syria) [19]
‘Initially, I can say it came as an extra tool without really knowing why I have to do this. But, through getting used to the tools and doing it regularly, I came to get used to it and think right now I can say it is something we feel like we cannot do without.’ (Kenya) [57]
‘I think that in Vietnam nowadays, obstetric ultrasound is the most important investigation to monitor the pregnancy. Some other investigations like blood test, urine test also have importance but they cannot be compared to the obstetric ultrasound.’ (Vietnam) [75]
‘I think it’s a very useful tool, I think we’re getting to the situation where many people can do nothing without an ultrasound, so those clinical skills have gone to a large extent.’ (Australia) [74]
For many women and healthcare professionals, the power of the ultrasound image was significant [32, 32, 43, 50, 54, 66, 73, 75–77]. Some women appeared to lack trust that they were pregnant until they were able to visualise the image of their baby [21, 25, 44, 52, 68, 72, 78]. The capacity for visualisation was particularly valued by fathers and other parents [21, 28, 61, 78]. The scan image offered the chance to visualise the future together as family. For some, it represented an opportunity to construct their child’s future personality and characteristics [32, 21, 73, 79]. However, this sense of connection also complicated decisions around termination of pregnancy [18, 30, 34, 68].
‘Before I found out I was pregnant I’d always said if I knew I was having a handicapped baby, I’d have a termination, but then when I went for the very first scan and saw the baby moving about and saw his heart beating, I thought afterwards I don’t know whether I could do it now, because he’s alive, it’s a person.’ (England) [18]
Some providers were concerned that the clarity of the ultrasound image meant that all complications should be visible and identified [39]. Some feared the potential for consequences for both the mother, and for their professional security, if abnormalities were missed [36, 39, 76]. In some LMIC contexts, concerns were also expressed about the lack of appropriate training and the potential for this to result in missed complications or misdiagnosis [38, 39, 76, 80]. Some respondents described professional and moral dilemmas around prioritising either mother or fetus in their clinical assessments [35, 40, 81, 82], as well ethical concerns when parents made decisions that did not fit with personal or professional beliefs [55, 80, 82]. Some also expressed concern that women would go to any lengths to protect the wellbeing of their baby, even when this was to their own detriment [38, 75, 81].
‘No special training on ultrasound, that’s the limitation, that’s why you can sometimes miss some complications if I find something I am not understanding.’ (Rwanda) [76]
‘I have never met an expectant mother who has hesitated to expose herself to something that might be harmful to her health as long as it benefits the fetus.’ (Sweden) [38]
Both joy and devastation; consequences of ultrasound findings.
The scan appointment was a source of great excitement, joy and relief for many couples, providing a chance to bond with their baby, whilst also instilling a sense of responsibility, particularly amongst fathers and other co-parents [19, 21, 32, 41, 45, 68, 77, 83]. For some, it also offered the potential for choice and the opportunity to plan when complications were detected [22, 68, 84, 85]. However, for many, the identification of abnormalities was completely unexpected [17, 18, 20, 24, 65, 69, 73, 80, 86–88]. Some reported deep shock and distress on hearing this news [17, 65, 67, 69, 73, 86–89]. Both service users and healthcare professionals reflected on how this shock could be compounded by couples’ expectations that the scan appointment is a happy event that would provide confirmation of wellbeing [24, 36, 65, 83]. The difficulty in getting the balance right in preparing couples for potential consequences of the scan was also discussed by healthcare professionals. Some felt that they lacked time to do this, amongst all the other issues to be discussed in an appointment, and they struggled to get the balance between discussing risk and maintaining a sense of normality prior to the scan [27, 37, 90].
… it’s making sure that they know enough but not frightening them or making them feel very negative about the pregnancy … not put too much emphasis on the possibility of problems.’ (England) [27]
‘We were so naive. We thought we were going to see the baby and get a nice photo.’ (Canada) [24]
“It was a shock like this, because what we expect is that it will be everything perfect” (Brazil) [69]
‘You come to find out the sex of the baby and have the bomb dropped on you.’ (USA) [87]
Uncertain findings that could, but may not, indicate abnormality, were particularly difficult for many couples, resulting in feelings of having lost their pregnancy, and a shift to a new tentative, risky state [18, 20, 29, 91]. Some women reported detaching themselves from their pregnancy and/or baby while also experiencing constant worry in relation to their baby’s wellbeing [17, 18, 22]. This state persisted into the long term for some, even after a follow-up diagnosis that all was well [18, 20, 91]. In some cases, this concern persisted even into infanthood, with, at the extreme, the decision not to pursue previously planned future pregnancies [18, 20, 91]. Some health professionals were acutely aware of the impact of uncertain findings on parents, resulting in dilemmas around whether these should be disclosed [36, 74, 81]. Parents were also conflicted about the benefits versus the harms of disclosing these findings [17, 29]. Some expressed regret in retrospect about the negative impact on their pregnancy [20, 87, 65, 67].
‘Because of this I wouldn’t have a third child… I’m not putting myself through this stress again ever, and I would have gone on to have a third one. We’re stopping at two.’ (England) [18]
‘The more you see sometimes the more uncertain things get. And you can ruin a pregnancy quite a bit like that. So I’m not sure whether it’s always good.’ (Australia) [74]
The significance of relationship in the ultrasound encounter.
Women and partners expressed a desire for scan providers to recognise the unique nature of the scan experience for them, to make them feel welcome, and to provide information and the opportunity to ask questions [21, 22, 25, 76, 65, 88]. Their actual experiences ranged from health workers being cold, disinterested, and lacking time to provide information, to those who were warm and engaging, and actively fostered questions and interest in the scan [18, 19, 22, 72, 80, 92]. In some contexts, women reported that they were unable to ask questions and that their experience was completely in the hands of the healthcare professional [19, 92]. Some women and their partners reported being completely excluded from their scan experience, unable to see the image of their baby, and left in silence to guess through body language what might be happening [18, 19, 22, 87].
‘He was staring for a long time at the screen. You see he is very good. He keeps looking [she waves as if she is reading from a book], and he keeps explaining. He told me about the [amniotic fluid]. My previous doctor was different. She does the scan very quickly and tells you: ‘Hey stand up… you have nothing’ and that’s all. I tell you, I felt the difference between those two doctors.’ (Syria) [19]
For some health workers supporting women through difficult findings was a rewarding aspect of their role; but they expressed the desire for more training in the communication of abnormal results, as well as more professional support to confirm findings [36, 37, 93–95]. A lack of time to form relationships and properly communicate results meant that some providers felt the need to distance themselves, in order to protect their own emotions and to enable them to perform consecutive scans within a limited time period [36, 90, 95].
‘It’s the responsibility of being alone in such a small place, I’m the only one looking. . . I miss a colleague, so I could say “Could you take a look with me, let’s discuss this together.’ (Norway) [95]
‘You’ve got to protect yourself, you’ve got to … not harden your heart, but you do have to protect yourself and not get too emotionally involved, because otherwise you wouldn’t survive very long in our job.’ (England) [36]
Discussion
In 2019, the WHO maternal and perinatal health steering group prioritised updating their early ultrasound scan recommendations [5]. This systematic review informs the subsequent recommendations and will inform living guideline updates of this recommendation [96]. The potential drivers for appropriate or inappropriate use of ultrasound were captured in the four study themes.
In line with other studies [6], the experience of providing or receiving ultrasound was generally seen as positive in our analysis [21, 25, 34, 38, 39, 41, 97], generating high demand for scans [19, 39, 43, 49, 50, 55, 64, 74], but the consequences of adverse findings was sometimes devastating [18, 20, 50, 65, 67, 73, 74, 87]. Importantly, in this review, we found that even when an initial concern was later ruled out, there were very significant long-term adverse consequences for some service users [17, 18, 20, 67, 91]. Respondents also reported overuse, with implications for the provision of other antenatal assessments and potential loss of clinical skills [19, 38, 48, 53, 55, 74, 82]. This reinforces previously published survey data from a range of settings [98–100].
Provider attitudes and behaviours were influential in the service user experience [18, 19, 21, 22, 72, 86, 88], as were local social norms [18, 21, 25, 34, 41, 52, 58, 60, 61] and access to follow up investigations and support [21, 22, 67, 86, 87]. Providers reported concerns around missing important features of the scan [38, 39, 75, 96], and a lack of sufficient time and training to appropriately carry out ultrasound assessments [36, 38, 76, 90, 95].
Previous survey research has found mixed evidence about the impact of ultrasound screening on maternal anxiety [101]. Our data suggest possible drivers for the varying perceptions of ultrasound screening. The power of the visual in making the fetus ‘real’ is evident in our analysis [21, 23, 28, 32, 35, 43, 44, 50, 73], reinforcing the validity of concepts of what has been termed the ‘tentative pregnancy’, in which women put their sense of being pregnant on hold until they have visual evidence of the fetus, and of its wellbeing [102]. Our data show that visual markers with unknown provenance or meaning can be unsettling for health workers as well as for service users [17, 18, 20, 38, 50, 74, 81]. The value of diagnosing abnormality was less clear in contexts where termination was not an option [58, 60, 61]. The critical, ethical and equity issue of female feticide reported in some settings underpins growing concerns about sex selection, linked to a much lower female-male sex ratio than would be expected in some countries [13, 68, 69, 103].
Our findings raise questions about the utility of ultrasound in pregnancy as a screening tool in settings where the implications of features on the scans are not always understood by practitioners or service users [100, 104–107], and/or if there are no effective follow up, treatment, or solution to some ultrasound findings [108–110]. They raise concerns about the use of ultrasound as a deliberate ‘draw’ to bring women into antenatal care, if the consequence is overuse by undertrained staff, without time to undertaken the scan effectively, including provision of tailored information and psychosocial support where needed; and without effective, affordable, equitable referral pathways.
The strengths of this review include the comprehensive search that was not restricted by language or date, and the inclusion of 80 qualitative studies covering countries from most regions of the world. Fourteen of the 17 review findings were assessed as high or moderate confidence evidence using the GRADE CERQual approach [16]. We have included the experiences and perspectives of women and their partners, as well as health workers, from low-, middle- and high-income countries. Limitations include that we were unable to distinguish between first and second trimester ultrasound in our findings, as the findings were not clearly separated, or they were similar in both trimesters. We were also unable to include the views of policy makers or funders, as our search did not retrieve any eligible studies that included this perspective. Furthermore, many of the findings relate to identification and diagnosis of abnormality, rather than to assessment of gestational age, fetal growth, or multiple pregnancy. The majority of studies in our review are from high-income countries, which was anticipated, but the inclusion of more studies from low-income settings may have provided further implications for the use of ultrasound services in this context. Thirteen of the included studies were from the CROss-Country Ultrasound Study (CROCUS). However, these studies explored the views of both providers and service users, from a number of different low-, middle-, and high-income countries.
This review offers a critical insight into how countries can introduce and maintain optimal routine antenatal ultrasound services. The findings reinforce the psychological and emotional benefits of such services from the point of view of most women and their partners, and the clinical benefits as perceived by service providers. However, there are implications for implementation in settings where antenatal ultrasound is not yet a routine component of antenatal care, and improvements that can be made in other settings where use of this technology is already established. In all settings, and particularly those with restricted resources, adequate education and training in both the use of obstetric ultrasound and in positive interactions with service users is essential, as well the allowance of sufficient time to undertake the scan effectively and with attention to the needs of the parents. Mitigation against overuse is important, to ensure that the use of ultrasound is appropriately balanced with the provision of expert clinical antenatal care. The potential for, and consequences of fetal sex disclosure must also be considered, especially in contexts where there is sociocultural bias towards male sex. Improvements can be made in all settings to ensure that women and their partners make autonomous informed decisions relating to the uptake of antenatal ultrasound; that they are adequately involved during the scanning procedure; and that information relating to the results is provided in a timely and supportive manner.
Future research should consider the ways in which ultrasound might be implemented to ensure equity of access, follow up, and longer term social and psychological support where this is needed, so that the positive aspects are maintained, while limiting the potential for overuse and for adverse impacts. There is a need to determine what is necessary and optimal to disclose with regard to markers of unclear significance and to consider how couples can be optimally supported through uncertain findings, and through to future reproductive decision making. Consideration should be given to the whole maternity and health care system into which ultrasound is introduced. Research into the use of portable ultrasound may be relevant for all settings, but particularly within LMICs, where this may be a requirement for rural and remote provision of ultrasound. This would require the ability to produce scan images of sufficient quality, as well as consideration of the findings of this review.
References
- 1. Whitworth M, Bricker L, Mullan C. Ultrasound for fetal assessment in early pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015: CD007058. pmid:26171896
- 2. Stewart KA, Navarro SM, Kambala S, et al. Trends in ultrasound use in low and middle income countries: A systematic review. Int J MCH AIDS. 2020; 9:103–120. pmid:32123634
- 3. Goley SM, Sakula-Barry S, Adofo-Ansong N, et al. Investigating the use of ultrasonography for the antenatal diagnosis of structural congenital anomalies in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review. BMJ Paediatr Open. 2020; 4: e000684. pmid:32864479
- 4. Hitimana R, Lindholm L, Krantz G, Nzayirambaho M, Pulkki-Brännströmw A-M. Cost of antenatal care for the health sector and for households in Rwanda. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018; 18. pmid:29631583
- 5.
World Health Organisation. WHO Recommendations on Antenatal Care for a Positive Pregnancy Experience; 2016.
- 6. Garcia J, Bricker L, Henderson J, et al. Women’s views of pregnancy ultrasound: a systematic review. Birth. 2002; 29: 225–250. pmid:12431263
- 7. Ebrashy A, Kurjak A, Adra A, et al. Controversial ultrasound findings in mid trimester pregnancy. Evidence based approach. J Perinat Med. 2016; 44: 131–137. pmid:26506099
- 8. Kaplan R, Adams S. Incidental fetal ultrasound findings: Interpretation and management. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2018; 63: 323–329. pmid:29763964
- 9. Prentice G, Welsh A, Howat A, Ross D, Henry A. Isolated ‘soft signs’ of fetal choroid plexus cysts or echogenic intracardiac focus–consequences of their continued reporting. Australas J Ultrasound Med. 2019; 22: 253–264. pmid:34760567
- 10. Garel M, Gosme-Seguret S, Kaminski M, Cuttini M. Ethical decision-making in prenatal diagnosis and termination of pregnancy: a qualitative survey among physicians and midwives. Prenat Diagn. 2002; 22: 811–817. pmid:12224077
- 11. Bakst S, Romano-Zelekha O, Ostrovsky J, Shohat T. Determinants associated with making prenatal screening decisions in a national study. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019; 39: 41–48. pmid:30244627
- 12. Ghosh R, Sharma AK. Missing female fetus: a micro level investigation of sex determination in a periurban area of Northern India. Health Care Women Int. 2012; 33: 1020–1034. pmid:23066964
- 13. Pham BN, Hall W, Hill PS. Indirect evidence of the contribution of prenatal sex selection practices to the high sex ratio at birth in Vietnam. J Popul Res. 2011; 28: 293–299.
- 14. Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008; 8: 45. pmid:18616818
- 15. Walsh D, Downe S. Appraising the quality of qualitative research. Midwifery. 2006; 22: 108–119. pmid:16243416
- 16. Lewin S, Booth A, Glenton C, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series. Implement Sci. 2018; 13. pmid:29384079
- 17. 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: 87–93. pmid:20083367
- 18. 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: 377–394.
- 19. Bashour H, Hafez R, Abdulsalam A. Syrian women’s perceptions and experiences of ultrasound screening in pregnancy: Implications for antenatal policy. Reprod Health Matters. 2005; 13: 147–154. pmid:16035608
- 20. Carolan M, Hodnett E. Discovery of soft markers on fetal ultrasound: maternal implications. Midwifery. 2009; 25: 654–664. pmid:18314233
- 21. Ekelin M, Crang-Svalenius E, Dykes A-K. A qualitative study of mothers’ and fathers’ experiences of routine ultrasound examination in Sweden. Midwifery. 2004; 20: 335–344. pmid:15571882
- 22. Larsson A-K, Svalenius EC, Lundqvist A, Dykes A-K. Parents’ experiences of an abnormal ultrasound examination—vacillating between emotional confusion and sense of reality. Reprod Health. 2010; 7: 10. pmid:20546610
- 23. Lou S, Frumer M, Schlütter MM, Petersen OB, Vogel I, Nielsen CP. Experiences and expectations in the first trimester of pregnancy: a qualitative study. Health Expect. 2017; 20: 1320–1329. pmid:28521069
- 24. Mitchell LM. Women’s experiences of unexpected ultrasound findings. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2004; 49: 228–234. pmid:15134676
- 25. Molander E, Alehagen S, Berterö CM. Routine ultrasound examination during pregnancy: a world of possibilities. Midwifery. 2010; 26: 18–26. pmid:18571818
- 26. Thorpe K, Harker L, Pike A, Marlow N. Women’s views of ultrasonography. A comparison of women’s experiences of antenatal ultrasound screening with cerebral ultrasound of their newborn infant. Soc Sci Med. 1993; 36: 311–315. pmid:8426975
- 27. Barr O, Skirton H. Informed decision making regarding antenatal screening for fetal abnormality in the United Kingdom: a qualitative study of parents and professionals: Informed consent and antenatal screening. Nurs Health Sci. 2013; 15: 318–325. pmid:23347127
- 28. Walsh T, Tolman R, Davis R, Palladino C, Romero V, Singh V. Moving Up the "Magic Moment": Fathers’ Experience of Prenatal Ultrasound. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice about Men as Fathers. 2014; 12: 18–37.
- 29. Åhman A, Lindgren P, Sarkadi A. Facts first, then reaction—expectant fathers’ experiences of an ultrasound screening identifying soft markers. Midwifery. 2012; 28: e667–75. pmid:21920645
- 30. Dheensa S, Williams R, Metcalfe A. Shattered Schemata and Fragmented Identities: Men’s Experiences of Antenatal Genetic Screening in Great Britain. J Fam Issues. 2013; 34: 1081–1103.
- 31. Dheensa S, Metcalfe PA, Williams R. What do men want from antenatal screening? Findings from an interview study in England. Midwifery. 2015; 31: 208–214. pmid:25242107
- 32. Draper J. ‘It was a real good show’: the ultrasound scan, fathers and the power of visual knowledge. Sociol Health Illn. 2002; 24: 771–795.
- 33. Pereira Silva Cardoso VE, Da Silva Junior AJ, Bonatti AF, Soares dos Santos GW, Nascimento Ribeiro TA. The partner’s involvement in the prenatal routine through the pregnant women perspective / A participação do parceiro na rotina pré-natal sob a perspectiva da mulher gestante. Rev Pesqui Cuid é Fundam. 2018; 10: 856–862.
- 34. Williams C, Sandall J, Lewando-Hundt G, Heyman B, Spencer K, Grellier R. Women as moral pioneers? Experiences of first trimester antenatal screening. Soc Sci Med. 2005; 61:1983–1992. pmid:15899542
- 35. Edvardsson K, Åhman A, Fagerli TA, et al. Norwegian obstetricians’ experiences of the use of ultrasound in pregnancy management. A qualitative study. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2018; 15: 69–76. pmid:29389504
- 36. Hardicre NK, Arezina J, McGuinness A, Johnson J. Managing the unmanageable: A qualitative study exploring sonographer experiences of and training in unexpected and difficult news delivery. Radiography. 2021; 27: 369–376. pmid:33077330
- 37. Schwennesen N, Koch L. Representing and intervening: ‘doing’ good care in first trimester prenatal knowledge production and decision-making: ‘Doing’ good care in prenatal decision-making. Sociol Health Illn. 2012; 34: 283–298. pmid:22257243
- 38. Åhman A, Persson M, Edvardsson K et al. Two sides of the same coin–an interview study of Swedish obstetricians’ experiences using ultrasound in pregnancy management. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015; 15. pmid:26589489
- 39. Åhman A, Edvardsson K, Fagerli TA, et al. A much valued tool that also brings ethical dilemmas—a qualitative study of Norwegian midwives’ experiences and views on the role of obstetric ultrasound. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019; 19: 33. pmid:30651083
- 40. Edvardsson K, Lalos A, Åhman A, Small R, Graner , MD, PhD S, Mogren I. Increasing possibilities–Increasing dilemmas: A qualitative study of Swedish midwives’ experiences of ultrasound use in pregnancy. Midwifery. 2016; 42: 46–53. pmid:27788415
- 41. Firth ER, Mlay P, Walker R, Sill PR. Pregnant women’s beliefs, expectations and experiences of antenatal ultrasound in Northern Tanzania. Afr J Reprod Health. 2011; 15: 91–107. pmid:22590896
- 42. Ockleford E, Berryman J, Hsu R. Do women understand prenatal screening for fetal abnormality? Br J Midwifery. 2003; 11: 445–449
- 43. Georges E. Fetal ultrasound imaging and the production of authoritative knowledge in Greece. Med Anthropol Q. 1996; 10: 157–175. pmid:8744082
- 44. Harris G, Connor L, Bisits A, Higginbotham N. "Seeing the Baby": Pleasures and Dilemmas of Ultrasound Technologies for Primiparous Australian Women. Med Anthropol Q. 2004; 18: 23–47. pmid:15098426
- 45. Jones RM, Vesel L, Kimenju G et al. Implementation of the INTERGROWTH-21st gestational dating and fetal and newborn growth standards in Nairobi, Kenya. Glob Health Action. 2020; 13: 1770967. pmid:32544027
- 46. Liamputtong P, Watson L. The voices and concerns about prenatal testing of Cambodian, Lao and Vietnamese women in Australia. Midwifery. 2002; 18: 304–313. pmid:12473445
- 47. Øyen L, Aune I. Viewing the unborn child—pregnant women’s expectations, attitudes and experiences regarding fetal ultrasound examination. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2016; 7: 8–13. pmid:26826039
- 48. Gammeltoft T, Nguyen HTT. The commodification of obstetric ultrasound scanning in Hanoi, Viet Nam. Reprod Health Matters. 2007; 15: 163–171.
- 49. Gammeltoft T, Nguyen HTT. Fetal conditions and fatal decisions: ethical dilemmas in ultrasound screening in Vietnam. Soc Sci Med. 2007; 64: 2248–2259. pmid:17403563
- 50. 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. pmid:26311437
- 51. Sandelowski M. Separate, but less unequal: Fetal ultrasonography and the transformation of expectant mother/fatherhood. Gend Soc. 1994; 8: 230–245.
- 52. Tsianakas V, Liamputtong P. Prenatal testing: the perceptions and experiences of Muslim women in Australia. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2002; 20: 7–24. pmid:12784816
- 53. Åhman A, Kidanto H, Ngarina M, Edvardsson K, Small R, Mogren I. ‘Essential but not always available when needed’–an interview study of physicians’ experiences and views regarding use of obstetric ultrasound in Tanzania. Glob Health Action. 2016; 9: 31062. pmid:27452066
- 54. Åhman A, Edvardsson K, Lesio Kidanto H, Ngarina M, Small R, Mogren I. ‘Without ultrasound you can’t reach the best decision’–Midwives’ experiences and views of the role of ultrasound in maternity care in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania. Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare. 2018; 15: 28–34. pmid:29389498
- 55. Holmlund S, Ntaganira J, Edvardsson K et al. Improved maternity care if midwives learn to perform ultrasound: a qualitative study of Rwandan midwives’ experiences and views of obstetric ultrasound. Glob Health Action. 2017; 10: 1350451. pmid:28764602
- 56. Scott K, Gupta S, Williams E, Arthur M, Somayajulu U, Noguchi L. “I can guess the month … but beyond that, I can’t tell” an exploratory qualitative study of health care provider perspectives on gestational age estimation in Rajasthan, India. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020; 20. 529. pmid:32917163
- 57. Vesel L, Nimako K, Jones RM, et al. Implementing the INTERGROWTH-21st gestational dating and fetal and newborn growth standards in peri-urban Nairobi, Kenya: Provider experiences, uptake and clinical decision-making. PLoS One. 2019; 14: e0213388. pmid:30849125
- 58. Teman E, Ivry T, Bernhardt BA. Pregnancy as a proclamation of faith: Ultra-Orthodox Jewish women navigating the uncertainty of pregnancy and prenatal diagnosis. Am J Med Genet A. 2011; 15: 69–80. pmid:21204212
- 59. Gitsels-van der Wal JT, Martin L, Manniën J, Verhoeven P, Hutton EK, Reinders HS. A qualitative study on how Muslim women of Moroccan descent approach antenatal anomaly screening. Midwifery. 2015; 31: e43–9. pmid:25592301
- 60. Lewando-Hundt G, Shoham-Vardi I, Beckerleg S, Belmaker I, Kassem F, Jaafar AA. Knowledge, action and resistance: the selective use of pre-natal screening among Bedouin women of the Negev, Israel. Soc Sci Med. 2001; 52: 561–569. pmid:11206653
- 61. Rice PL, Naksook C. Pregnancy and technology: Thai women’s perceptions and experience of prenatal testing. Health Care Women Int. 1999; 20: 259–278. pmid:10633624
- 62. Gottfredsdóttir H, Björnsdóttir K, Sandall J. How do prospective parents who decline prenatal screening account for their decision? A qualitative study. Soc Sci Med. 2009; 69: 274–277. pmid:19481846
- 63. Ledward . Pregnant women’s experiences of screening for fetal abnormalities according to NICE guidelines: How should midwives communicate information? Evidence Based. Midwifery. 2017; 15: 112–119.
- 64. Doering K, Patterson J, Griffiths C. Experience of the New Zealand maternity care system by a group of Japanese women in one centre. N Z. Coll Midwives. 2015; 51: 5–10.
- 65. Kristjansdottir H, Gottfredsdottir H. Making sense of the situation: women’s reflection of positive fetal screening 11–21 months after giving birth. Midwifery. 2014; 30: 643–649. pmid:24332751
- 66. Hawthorne F, Ahern K. “Holding our breath”: the experiences of women contemplating nuchal translucency screening. App Nurs Res. 2009; 22: 236–242. pmid:19875037
- 67. Larsson A-K, Crang-Svalenius E, Dykes A-K. Information for better or for worse: interviews with parents when their foetus was found to have choroid plexus cysts at a routine second trimester ultrasound. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2009; 30: 48–57. pmid:19308783
- 68. Ekelin M, Persson L, Välimäki A, Crang Svalenius E. To know or not to know–parents’ attitudes to and preferences for prenatal diagnosis. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2016; 34: 356–369.
- 69. Gomes AG, Piccinini CA. Impressões e sentimentos das gestantes sobre a ultra-sonografia e suas implicações para a relação materno-fetal no contexto de anormalidade fetal. PSICO. 2007; 38: 65–76.
- 70. Mubuuke AG. An exploratory study of the views of Ugandan women and health practitioners on the use of sonography to establish fetal sex. Pan Afr Med J. 2011; 9:36. pmid:22355436
- 71. Bhagat N, Laskar AR, Sharma N. Women’s perception about sex selection in an urban slum in Delhi. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2012; 30: 92–104.
- 72. Ranji A, Dykes A-K, Ny P. Routine ultrasound investigations in the second trimester of pregnancy: the experiences of immigrant parents in Sweden. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2012; 30: 312–325.
- 73. Denny E, Quinlan-Jones E, Bibila S, Kilby M. The experience of pregnant women with a diagnosis of fetal lower urinary tract obstruction (LUTO). Midwifery. 2014; 30: 636–642. pmid:24290423
- 74. Edvardsson K, Small R, Persson M, Lalos A, Mogren I. ‘Ultrasound is an invaluable third eye, but it can’t see everything’: a qualitative study with obstetricians in Australia. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014; 14: 363. pmid:25336335
- 75. Edvardsson K, Graner S, Thi LP, et al. ‘Women think pregnancy management means obstetric ultrasound’: Vietnamese obstetricians’ views on the use of ultrasound during pregnancy. Glob Health Action. 2015; 8: 28405. pmid:26519131
- 76. Edvardsson K, Ntaganira J, Åhman A, Sengoma JPS, Small R, Mogren I. Physicians’ experiences and views on the role of obstetric ultrasound in rural and urban Rwanda: a qualitative study. Trop Med Int Health. 2016; 21: 895–906. pmid:27125579
- 77. Dykes K, Stjernqvist K. The importance of ultrasound to first-time mothers’ thoughts about their unborn child. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2001; 19: 95–104.
- 78. Gagnon R. L’enfant à naître: dispositifs de contrôle dès que la vie paraît. Enfances, Familles, Generations. 2020
- 79. Walsh TB. Your baby is so happy, active, uncooperative: How prenatal care providers contribute to parents’ mental representations of the baby. Midwifery. 2020; 83: 102630. pmid:32006801
- 80. Stephenson N, Mills C, McLeod K. “Simply providing information”: Negotiating the ethical dilemmas of obstetric ultrasound, prenatal testing and selective termination of pregnancy. Fem Psychol. 2017; 27: 72–91.
- 81. Edvardsson K, Small R, Lalos A, Persson M, Mogren I. Ultrasound’s ‘window on the womb’ brings ethical challenges for balancing maternal and fetal health interests: obstetricians’ experiences in Australia. BMC Med Ethics. 2015; 16. pmid:25953252
- 82. Holmlund S, Lan PT, Edvardsson K, et al. Sub-optimal use of ultrasound examinations may result in underperformance of Vietnamese maternity care—A qualitative study of midwives’ experiences and views. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2020; 24: 100508. pmid:32278314
- 83. Stephenson N, McLeod K, Mills C. Ambiguous encounters, uncertain foetuses: Women’s experiences of obstetric ultrasound. Fem Rev. 2016; 113: 17–33.
- 84. Gottfredsdóttir H, Sandall J, Björnsdóttir K. ‘This is just what you do when you are pregnant’: a qualitative study of prospective parents in Iceland who accept nuchal translucency screening. Midwifery. 2009; 25: 711–720. pmid:18295382
- 85. Oscarsson M, Gottvall T, Swahnberg K. When fetal hydronephrosis is suspected antenatally—a qualitative study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015; 15. pmid:26694546
- 86. Asplin N, Wessel H, Marions L, Georgsson Öhman S. Pregnant women’s experiences, needs, and preferences regarding information about malformations detected by ultrasound scan. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2012; 3: 73–78. pmid:22578754
- 87. Cristofalo EA, Dipietro JA, Costigan KA, Nelson P, Crino J. Women’s response to fetal choroid plexus cysts detected by prenatal ultrasound. J Perinatol. 2006; 26: 215–223. pmid:16554849
- 88. Van der Zalm JE, Byrne PJ. Seeing baby: women’s experience of prenatal ultrasound examination and unexpected fetal diagnosis. J Perinatol. 2006; 26: 403–408. pmid:16801957
- 89. Sommerseth E, Sundby J. Women’s experiences when ultrasound examinations give unexpected findings in the second trimester. Women Birth. 2010; 23: 111–116. pmid:20153992
- 90. Williams C, Alderson P, Farsides B. Dilemmas encountered by health practitioners offering nuchal translucency screening: a qualitative case study. Prenat Diagn. 2002; 22: 216–220. pmid:11920897
- 91. Hammond J, Klapwijk JE, Hill M, et al. Parental experiences of uncertainty following an abnormal fetal anomaly scan: Insights using Han’s taxonomy of uncertainty. J Genet Couns. 2021; 30: 198–210. pmid:32638447
- 92. Denney-Koelsch EM, Côté-Arsenault D, Lemcke-Berno E. Parents’ experiences with ultrasound during pregnancy with a lethal fetal diagnosis. Glob Qual Nurs Res. 2015; 2. pmid:26878030
- 93. Gammeltoft T. Sonography and sociality: obstetrical ultrasound imaging in urban Vietnam. Med Anthropol Q. 2007; 21: 133–153. pmid:17601081
- 94. Jansson C, Adolfsson A. A Swedish study of midwives’ and nurses’ experiences when women are diagnosed with a missed miscarriage during a routine ultrasound scan. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2010; 1: 67–72. pmid:21122599
- 95. Reiso M, Langli B, Sommerseth E, Johannessen A. A qualitative study of the work experiences of midwives performing obstetric ultrasound in Norway. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020; 20: 641. pmid:33087091
- 96. Vogel JP, Dowswell T, Lewin S, et al. Developing and applying a ‘living guidelines’ approach to WHO recommendations on maternal and perinatal health. BMJ Glob Health. 2019; 4: e001683 pmid:31478014
- 97. Gomes AG, Piccinini CA. Impressões e sentimentos de gestantes em relação à ultra-sonografia obstétrica no contexto de normalidade fetal. Psicologia: Reflexão e CrÃtica. 2007; 20: 179–187.
- 98. Holmlund S, Lan P, Edvardsson K et al. Health professionals’ experiences and views on obstetric ultrasound in Vietnam: a regional, cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2019; 9: e031761. pmid:31548354
- 99. Ker C-R, Kuo Y-L, Chan T-F. A survey of current use, dilemma and outlook of antenatal ultrasonography in Taiwan. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 58: 820–826. pmid:31759535
- 100. Ranji A, Dykes A-K. Ultrasound screening during pregnancy in Iran: womens’ expectations, experiences and number of scans. Midwifery. 2012; 28: 24–29. pmid:21041007
- 101. 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: 15–27. pmid:25146713
- 102.
Rothman BK. The Tentative Pregnancy: Prenatal Diagnosis and the Future of Motherhood. Penguin Books; 1987.
- 103. Roberts LR, Montgomery SB. India’s distorted sex ratio: Dire consequences for girls. J Christ Nurs. 2016; 33: E7–E15. pmid:28286369
- 104. Gourounti K, Lykeridou K, Daskalakis G, Glentis S, Sandall J, Antsaklis A. Women’s perception of information and experiences of nuchal translucency screening in Greece. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2008; 24: 86–91. pmid:18648204
- 105. Kinnevey C, Kawooya M, Tumwesigye T, Douglas D, Sams S. Addressing obstetrical challenges at 12 rural Ugandan health facilities: Findings from an international ultrasound and skills development training for midwives in Uganda. Int J MCH AIDS. 2016; 5: 46–52. pmid:28058192
- 106. Matiang’i M, Joosse K, Ngunju P, et al. Barriers and enablers that influence utilization of ultrasound screening services among antenatal women in kajiado and Kisii counties Kenya. Open J Clin Diagn. 2021; 11: 1–17.
- 107. Ugwu A, Osungbade E, Erondu F. Maternal perspectives of prenatal sonogram in a north-eastern population in Nigeria. Libyan J Med. 2009; 4: 140–142. pmid:21483536
- 108. Franklin HL, Mirza W, Swanson DL, et al. Factors influencing referrals for ultrasound-diagnosed complications during prenatal care in five low and middle income countries. Reprod Health. 2018; 15: 204. pmid:30541560
- 109. Stefanovic V. Role of obstetric ultrasound in reducing maternal and neonatal mortality in developing countries: From facts to acts. J Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020; 14: 43–49.
- 110. Swanson DL, Franklin HL, Swanson JO, et al. Including ultrasound scans in antenatal care in low-resource settings: Considering the complementarity of obstetric ultrasound screening and maternity waiting homes in strengthening referral systems in low-resource, rural settings. Semin Perinatol. 2019; 43: 273–281. pmid:30979599