4.4 Article

Experiences of informational needs and received information following a prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart defect

Journal

PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS
Volume 36, Issue 6, Pages 515-522

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pd.4815

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Uppsala County Council
  2. Swedish Society of Medicine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ObjectiveTo explore the need for information and what information was actually received following prenatal diagnosis of a congenital heart defect, in a country where termination of pregnancy beyond 22weeks of gestation is not easily possible because of legal constraints. MethodsTwenty-six Swedish-speaking pregnant women (n=14) and partners (n=12) were consecutively recruited for semi-structured telephone interviews following the prenatal diagnosis of a congenital heart defect. Data were analyzed using content analysis. ResultsAlthough high satisfaction with the specialist information was described, the information was considered overwhelming and complex. Objective, honest, and detailed information about multiple subjects were needed, delivered repeatedly, and supplemented by written information/illustrations. Eighteen respondents had used the Internet to search for information and identified issues involving searching difficulties, low quality, and that it was too complex, insufficient, or unspecific. Those who terminated their pregnancy criticized that there was a lack of information about termination of pregnancy, both from health professionals and online sources, resulting in unanswered questions and unpreparedness. ConclusionIndividuals faced with a prenatal diagnosis of a congenital heart defect need individualized and repeated information. These needs are not all adequately met, as individuals are satisfied with the specialist consultation but left with unanswered questions regarding pregnancy termination. (c) 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available