Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The BMJ logoLink to The BMJ
. 1995 Oct 28;311(7013):1127–1130. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7013.1127

A randomised trial of three methods of giving information about prenatal testing.

J G Thornton 1, J Hewison 1, R J Lilford 1, A Vail 1
PMCID: PMC2551055  PMID: 7580707

Abstract

OBJECTIVE--To test the effect of extra non-directive information about prenatal testing, given individually or in a class. SETTING--Antenatal clinics in a district general hospital and a university hospital. DESIGN--Randomised controlled trial; participants allocated to control group or offer of extra information individually or in class. SUBJECTS--1691 women booking antenatal care before 15 weeks' gestation. INTERVENTIONS--All participants received the usual information about prenatal tests from hospital staff. Individual participants were offered a separate session with a research midwife in which prenatal screening was described in detail. Class participants were offered the same extra information in an early prenatal class. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Attendance at extra information sessions; uptake rates of prenatal tests; levels of anxiety, understanding, and satisfaction with decisions. RESULTS--Attendance at classes was lower than at individual sessions (adjusted odds ratio 0.45; 95% confidence interval 0.35 to 0.58). Ultrasonography was almost universally accepted (99%) and was not affected by either intervention. Uptake of cystic fibrosis testing, high in controls (79%), was lowered in the individual group (0.44; 0.20 to 0.97) and classes (0.39; 0.18 to 0.86). Uptake of screening for Down's syndrome, already low (34%) in controls, was not further depressed by extra information in classes (0.99; 0.70 to 1.39) and was slightly higher in the individual group (1.45; 1.04 to 2.02). Women offered extra information had improved understanding and were more satisfied with information received; satisfaction with decisions about prenatal testing was unchanged. The offer of individual information reduced anxiety later in pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS--Ultrasonography is valued for non-medical reasons and chosen even by fully informed people who eschew prenatal diagnosis. The offer of extra information has no overall adverse effects on anxiety and reduces uptake of blood tests when background uptake rate is high (but not when it is already low). High uptake of prenatal blood tests suggests compliant behaviour and need for more information.

Full text

PDF
1127

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Berwick D. M., Weinstein M. C. What do patients value? Willingness to pay for ultrasound in normal pregnancy. Med Care. 1985 Jul;23(7):881–893. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Clarke A., Parsons E. P. Screening, ethics, and the law. BMJ. 1993 Jan 16;306(6871):209–209. doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6871.209-a. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Field T., Sandberg D., Quetel T. A., Garcia R., Rosario M. Effects of ultrasound feedback on pregnancy anxiety, fetal activity, and neonatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol. 1985 Oct;66(4):525–528. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Freeman R. M., Macaulay A. J., Eve L., Chamberlain G. V., Bhat A. V. Randomised trial of self hypnosis for analgesia in labour. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1986 Mar 8;292(6521):657–658. doi: 10.1136/bmj.292.6521.657. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Lachmann P. The use of animals in research. BMJ. 1992 Jul 4;305(6844):1–1. doi: 10.1136/bmj.305.6844.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Marteau T. M., Johnston M., Plenicar M., Shaw R. W., Slack J. Development of a self-administered questionnaire to measure women's knowledge of prenatal screening and diagnostic tests. J Psychosom Res. 1988;32(4-5):403–408. doi: 10.1016/0022-3999(88)90023-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Marteau T. M., Johnston M., Shaw R. W., Michie S., Kidd J., New M. The impact of prenatal screening and diagnostic testing upon the cognitions, emotions and behaviour of pregnant women. J Psychosom Res. 1989;33(1):7–16. doi: 10.1016/0022-3999(89)90101-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Marteau T. M., Kidd J., Michie S., Cook R., Johnston M., Shaw R. W. Anxiety, knowledge and satisfaction in women receiving false positive results on routine prenatal screening: a randomized controlled trial. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 1993 Sep;14(3):185–196. doi: 10.3109/01674829309084441. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Marteau T. M. Psychological costs of screening. BMJ. 1989 Aug 26;299(6698):527–527. doi: 10.1136/bmj.299.6698.527. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Marteau T. M. Screening, ethics and the law. BMJ. 1992 Dec 5;305(6866):1433–1434. doi: 10.1136/bmj.305.6866.1433-e. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Marteau T. M., Slack J., Kidd J., Shaw R. W. Presenting a routine screening test in antenatal care: practice observed. Public Health. 1992 Mar;106(2):131–141. doi: 10.1016/s0033-3506(05)80390-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Reid M. Consumer-oriented studies in relation to prenatal screening tests. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1988 Apr;28 (Suppl):79–92. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Shapiro M. C., Najman J. M., Chang A., Keeping J. D., Morrison J., Western J. S. Information control and the exercise of power in the obstetrical encounter. Soc Sci Med. 1983;17(3):139–146. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(83)90247-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Steer P. Rituals in antenatal care--do we need them? BMJ. 1993 Sep 18;307(6906):697–698. doi: 10.1136/bmj.307.6906.697. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Thornton J. G., Cartmill R. S., Williams J., Holding S., Lilford R. J. Clinical experience with the triple test for Down's syndrome screening. J Perinat Med. 1991;19(3):151–154. doi: 10.1515/jpme.1991.19.3.151. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Wald N. J., Kennard A., Densem J. W., Cuckle H. S., Chard T., Butler L. Antenatal maternal serum screening for Down's syndrome: results of a demonstration project. BMJ. 1992 Aug 15;305(6850):391–394. doi: 10.1136/bmj.305.6850.391. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Wald N., Law M. Screening, ethics, and the law. BMJ. 1992 Oct 10;305(6858):892–892. doi: 10.1136/bmj.305.6858.892-b. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Zigmond A. S., Snaith R. P. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983 Jun;67(6):361–370. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from BMJ : British Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES