Prenatal Counseling – Implications of the Cultural Background of Pregnant Women on Information Processing, Emotional Response and Acceptance

Zusammenfassung

Ziel: Die Beratung vor pränatalen Untersuchungen (PND) im Hinblick auf eine informierte Entscheidung ist ethisch und psychologisch anspruchsvoll, besonders im interkulturellen Kontext. Ziel der Studie war es, kulturelle Unterschiede in der Informationsverarbeitung, der Ergebnisinterpretation, der Beurteilung des Informationsblattes, der emotionalen Reaktion während des Screenings und in der Akzeptanz der PND zu untersuchen. Material und Methoden: 30 schwangere Migrantinnen aus der Türkei wurden prospektiv mit 30 Schwangeren aus der Schweiz und Ländern der EU verglichen. Sie beantworteten vor (T1) und nach (T2) dem Ersttrimestertest (ETT), sowie nach Erhalt des Testresultates (T3) einen Fragebogen zu Informations- und Wissenstand bezüglich ETT und Erfahrungen mit der Beratung, ebenso je die Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Neben χ² Tests für dichotome Variablen und Student’s t-Tests für Scores zu Information, Wissen, Erfahrung, Angst und Depression wurde mittels 2-factorieller ANOVA auf Unterschiede bei den Gruppen im Zeitverlauf geprüft. Ergebnisse: Bei den 6 Fragen zum Wissensstand lag die Rate korrekter Antworten zwischen 32,2 und 62,5 % bei T 1 und 35,1 und 75,0 % bei T 2. Die Kenntnisse der Türkinnen waren signifikant geringer. Sie stuften das Informationsblatt als weniger hilfreich ein und fühlten sich eher verunsichert durch die Beratung. Die Akzeptanz der PND bei den Türkinnen war höher. Schlussfolgerung: In Anbetracht des Informations- und Wissensdefizits sind die Voraussetzungen für eine informierte Entscheidung vor allem bei den Türkinnen kaum gegeben. Die Akzeptanz der PND erwies sich gleichwohl als gut. Zukünftige Studien sollten den Fokus auf die spezifischen Bedürfnisse und Erwartungen von Schwangeren mit unterschiedlichem kulturellen Hintergrund richten.

Abstract

Purpose: Providing information about prenatal diagnosis (PND) that leads to an informed decision is ethically and psychologically challenging, especially in an intercultural context. The aim was to investigate cultural differences in information processing, test interpretation, evaluation of an established information leaflet, emotional response during screening and acceptance of PND. Materials and Methods: This prospective study compared 30 pregnant Turkish immigrants with 30 women from Switzerland and countries within the European Union (EU). They completed a questionnaire prior to (T1) and after risk assessment between 11 – 14 weeks (T2) and after receiving the results (T3). The questionnaire focused on the perception of, experiences with and knowledge about the risk assessment and included the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS). χ² tests were used for dichotomous variables and Student’s t-tests for scores on perception, experience, knowledge, depression and anxiety. Groups were compared over time by 2-factorial ANOVA. Results: Regarding the 6 questions on knowledge, the rate of correct answers was between 32.2 % and 62.5 % at T 1 and 35.1 % and 75.0 % at T 2. The Turkish women’s knowledge level was significantly lower. They rated the information leaflet as less helpful and found the counseling significantly more unsettling. The acceptance of PND was higher in Turkish women. Conclusion: Considering the information and knowledge deficits, informed consent was not given in every case, especially in Turkish women. Nevertheless, the acceptance of PND was good. Further studies will have to focus on counseling strategies that take into account the specific needs and expectations of pregnant women with different cultural backgrounds.

Key words

prenatal counseling - prenatal tests - informed consent - migration - cultural factors

References

• 1 Becker R, Wegner R D. Detailed screening for fetal anomalies and cardiac defects at the 11 – 13-week scan.  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006;  27 613-618
• 2 Nicolaides K H, Spencer K, Avgidou K et al. Multicenter study of first-trimester screening for trisomy 21 in 75 821 pregnancies: results and estimation of the potential impact of individual risk-orientated two-stage first-trimester screening.  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;  25 221-226
• 3 Kagan K O, Wright D, Baker A et al. Screening for trisomy 21 by maternal age, fetal nuchal translucency thickness, free beta-human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A.  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;  31 618-624
• 4 Gasiorek-Wiens A, Tercanli S, Kozlowski P et al. Screening for trisomy 21 by fetal nuchal translucency and maternal age: a multicenter project in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001;  18 645-648
• 5 Tercanli S, Holzgreve W, Batukan C et al. [Screening for aneuploidy by first trimester nuchal translucency measurement: results from a prospective trial including 1980 cases in a single center in Switzerland].  Ultraschall Med. 2002;  23 22-26
• 6 Bundesgesetz über genetische Untersuchungen beim Menschen. GUMG; 2004 81 012
• 7 Chervenak F A, McCullough L B, Chasen S T. Clinical implications of the ethics of informed consent for first-trimester risk assessment for trisomy 21.  Semin Perinatol. 2005;  29 277-279
• 8 Getz L, Kirkengen A L. Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: advancing technology, soft markers for fetal chromosomal aberrations, and unacknowledged ethical dilemmas.  Soc Sci Med. 2003;  56 2045-2057
• 9 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
• 10 Favre R, Moutel G, Duchange N et al. What about informed consent in first-trimester ultrasound screening for Down syndrome?.  Fetal Diagn Ther. 2008;  23 173-184
• 11 Gotzmann L, Schonholzer S M, Kolble N et al. [Ultrasound examinations in the context of suspected fetal malformations: satisfaction of concerned women and their appraisals].  Ultraschall Med. 2002;  23 27-32
• 12 Weinans M J, Huijssoon A M, Tymstra T et al. How women deal with the results of serum screening for Down syndrome in the second trimester of pregnancy.  Prenat Diagn. 2000;  20 705-708
• 13 Schonholzer S M, Gotzmann L, Zimmermann R et al. [Psychological aspects of ultrasound examinations during pregnancy].  Gynakol Geburtshilfliche Rundsch. 2000;  40 119-124
• 14 Gotzmann L, Schonholzer S M, Kolble N et al. [Suspected fetal malformation in ultrasound examination: effects on the psychological well-being of pregnant women].  Ultraschall Med. 2002;  23 33-40
• 15 Lee M J, Roman A S, Lusskin S et al. Maternal anxiety and ultrasound markers for aneuploidy in a multiethnic population.  Prenat Diagn. 2007;  27 40-45
• 16 Borde T. Migrantinnen in gynäkologischer Behandlung: Ihre spezifischen Aufklärungs- und Versorgungsbedürfnisse.  eutsche Krebsgesellschaft eV DKG, Forum DKG. 2003;  2 46-49
• 17 Harmsen J AM, Bernsen R MD, Bruijnzeels M A et al. Patients’ evaluation of quality of care in general practice: what are the cultural and linguistic barriers?.  Patient Educ Couns. 2008;  72 155-162
• 18 Tschudin S, Holzgreve W, Conde N et al. [Pregnant women’s assessment and level of knowledge of prenatal counseling].  Ultraschall Med. 2009;  30 157-162
• 19 Hoopman R, Terwee C B, Muller M J et al. Methodological challenges in quality of life research among Turkish and Moroccan ethnic minority cancer patients: translation, recruitment and ethical issues.  Ethn Health. 2009;  14 237-253
• 20 Zigmond A S, Snaith R P. The hospital anxiety and depression scale.  Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;  67 361-370
• 21 Gekas J, Gondry J, Mazur S et al. Informed consent to serum screening for Down syndrome: are women given adequate information?.  Prenat Diagn. 1999;  19 1-7
• 22 Goel V, Glazier R, Summers A et al. Psychological outcomes following maternal serum screening: a cohort study.  Cmaj. 1998;  159 651-656
• 23 Zlotogorski Z, Tadmor O, Duniec E et al. Anxiety levels of pregnant women during ultrasound examination: coping styles, amount of feedback and learned resourcefulness.  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995;  6 425-429
• 24 Leithner K, Maar A, Fischer-Kern M et al. Affective state of women following a prenatal diagnosis: predictors of a negative psychological outcome.  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;  23 240-246
• 25 Bennett H A, Einarson A, Taddio A et al. Depression during Pregnancy : Overview of Clinical Factors.  Clin Drug Investig. 2004;  24 157-179
• 26 Heron J, O’Connor T G, Evans J et al. The course of anxiety and depression through pregnancy and the postpartum in a community sample.  J Affect Disord. 2004;  80 65-73
• 27 Larsen T, Nguyen T H, Munk M et al. Ultrasound screening in the 2^nd trimester. The pregnant woman’s background knowledge, expectations, experiences and acceptances.  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000;  15 383-386
• 28 Moyer A, Brown B, Gates E et al. Decisions about prenatal testing for chromosomal disorders: perceptions of a diverse group of pregnant women.  J Womens Health Gend Based Med. 1999;  8 521-531
• 29 Reading A E, Cox D N, Campell S. A controlled prospective evaluation of the acceptability of ultrasound in prenatal care.  J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 1988;  8 191-198
• 30 Tymstra T J, Bajema C, Beekhuis J R et al. Women’s opinions on the offer and use of prenatal diagnosis.  Prenat Diagn. 1991;  11 893-898
• 31 Borde T, David M, Kentenich H. [What Turkish-speaking women expect in a German hospital and how satisfied they are with health care during their stay in a gynaecological hospital in Berlin – a comparative approach].  Gesundheitswesen. 2002;  64 476-485
• 32 Michie S, Smith D, Marteau T M. Prenatal tests: how are women deciding?.  Prenat Diagn. 1999;  19 743-748
• 33 Heuvel van den A, Marteau T M. Cultural variation in values attached to informed choice in the context of prenatal diagnosis.  Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2008;  13 99-102