4.6 Article

Women's knowledge and use of prenatal screening tests

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING
卷 26, 期 13-14, 页码 1869-1877

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13494

关键词

prenatal care; screening test; pregnancy; use

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims and objectives. The aim of the study was to determine the rate of use of prenatal screening tests and the factors affecting the decision to have a prenatal screening test in pregnant women in Turkey. Background. Prenatal genetic screening as an optional service is commonly used to determine a level of risk for genetic conditions in the foetus. Design. A quantitative cross-sectional survey. Methods. Pregnant women (n = 274) who sought prenatal care from one hospital in Turkey were recruited and asked to complete questionnaires that were developed by the researchers. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyse the data. Results. Almost half (44.2) % of the women were primiparas, and the majority (97.8%) were in the third trimester of pregnancy. Only 36.1% of the women reported that they had prenatal screening by either the double test or triple test. Women had a low level of knowledge regarding prenatal screening: the mean knowledge score was 3.43+/-3.21 of a possible score of 10. Having consanguineous marriage, a history of spontaneous abortion, a child with genetic disorder, multiparity or a longer marriage duration were positively correlated with accepting a prenatal screening test. Conclusions. This study has provided baseline data on the uptake and reasons for accepting or declining a prenatal screening in a cohort of Turkish women. There is evidence to suggest that more education is needed to improve knowledge and provide comprehensive nursing care to promote informed consent in this context. Relevance to clinical practice. Perinatal nurses are ideally situated to inform pregnant women about prenatal screening tests to improve access to healthcare services and to ensure informed decisions are made by pregnant women and their partners.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据