Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30651083›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2019

A much valued tool that also brings ethical dilemmas - a qualitative study of Norwegian midwives' experiences and views on the role of obstetric ultrasound.

Annika Åhman, Kristina Edvardsson, Tove Anita Fagerli, Elisabeth Darj, Sophia Holmlund, Rhonda Small, Ingrid Mogren

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Annika ÅhmanDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Umeå University, 901 87, Umeå, Sweden.
Kristina EdvardssonDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Umeå University, 901 87, Umeå, Sweden. k.edvardsson@latrobe.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6883-3664
Tove Anita FagerliNational Center for Fetal Medicine, St Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Elisabeth DarjDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, St Olavs Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Sophia HolmlundDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Umeå University, 901 87, Umeå, Sweden.
Rhonda SmallJudith Lumley Centre, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Ingrid MogrenDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Umeå University, 901 87, Umeå, Sweden.
La Trobe University · AUUmeå University · SESt Olav's University Hospital · NOUppsala University · SE

Funding

Forskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd 2013-2699Vetenskapsrådet 2014-2672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMidwives are the main providers of routine antenatal care services including the routine ultrasound examination in Norway. The ultrasound examination can be perceived by expectant parents not only as a medical examination but also as a social event facilitating attachment to their fetus. This study explores Norwegian midwives' experiences and views on the role of ultrasound in clinical management of pregnancy.

methodsA qualitative study design was applied. Twenty-four midwives who all performed obstetric ultrasound examinations were recruited for focus group discussions and individual interviews. Data collection took place in 2015 in five hospitals in two different regions of Norway. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

resultsMidwives described obstetric ultrasound examinations as very valuable although doing ultrasounds placed high demands on their operational and counselling skills. Increasing requests for ultrasound from pregnant women were mentioned. Advancements in ultrasound diagnosis were considered to have put the fetus in the position of a patient, and that pregnant women declining ultrasound could be viewed as irresponsible by some health professionals. Ethical concerns were raised regarding the possibility of pregnancy termination when fetal anomalies were detected. Fears were also expressed that prenatal diagnoses including those following ultrasound, might create a society where only 'perfect' children are valued. However, participants stressed that their intention in performing ultrasound was to optimize pregnancy outcome and thereby assist expectant couples and their unborn children.

conclusionsMidwives in Norwegian maternity care services describe obstetric ultrasound as very valuable, playing a central role in pregnancy management by optimizing pregnancy outcomes. Although high demands are placed on operators' technical skills and counseling, midwives described performing obstetric ultrasound as very satisfying work. However, midwives believed that expectant parents' approach to the ultrasound examination, both its medical value and the precious images obtained of the fetus, could put extra strain on the midwives performing ultrasounds. The potential of ultrasound to detect fetal anomalies and the possibility that this may lead to termination of pregnancy, seemed to create some ambivalent feelings in midwives towards its use.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelAdultFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMiddle AgedMidwiferyNorwayNurse MidwivesPregnancyQualitative ResearchUltrasonography, PrenatalMidwivesNorwayPregnancyQualitative researchUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID30651083
PMCPMC6335783
OpenAlexW2925216013

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.