SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Cited in:

CrossRef

This article has been cited by:

  1. 1
    Stina Lou, Line Mikkelsen, Lone Hvidman, Olav B. Petersen, Camilla Palmhøj Nielsen, Does screening for Down's syndrome cause anxiety in pregnant women? A systematic review, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 2015, 94, 1
  2. 2
    Anjali R. Truitt, Michael H. V. Nguyen, Printing Unrealistic Expectations: A Closer Look at Newspaper Representations of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing, AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 2015, 6, 1, 68

    CrossRef

  3. 3
    Helga Kristin Hallgrimsdottir, Bryan Eric Benner, ‘Knowledge is power’: risk and the moral responsibilities of the expectant mother at the turn of the twentieth century, Health, Risk & Society, 2014, 16, 1, 7

    CrossRef

  4. 4
    Tine M. Gammeltoft, Ayo Wahlberg, Selective Reproductive Technologies, Annual Review of Anthropology, 2014, 43, 1, 201

    CrossRef

  5. 5
    Elaine Denny, Elizabeth Quinlan-Jones, Stavroula Bibila, Mark Kilby, The experience of pregnant women with a diagnosis of fetal lower urinary tract obstruction (LUTO), Midwifery, 2014, 30, 6, 636

    CrossRef

  6. 6
    Felicity Kate Boardman, The expressivist objection to prenatal testing: The experiences of families living with genetic disease, Social Science & Medicine, 2014, 107, 18

    CrossRef

  7. 7
    Susan Markens, “Is This Something You Want?”: Genetic Counselors’ Accounts of Their Role in Prenatal Decision Making, Sociological Forum, 2013, 28, 3
  8. 8
    Susan Markens, “It just becomes much more complicated”: Genetic counselors' views on genetics and prenatal testing, New Genetics and Society, 2013, 32, 3, 302

    CrossRef

  9. 9
    Claudine Burton-Jeangros, Samuele Cavalli, Solène Gouilhers, Raphaël Hammer, Between tolerable uncertainty and unacceptable risks: how health professionals and pregnant women think about the probabilities generated by prenatal screening, Health, Risk & Society, 2013, 15, 2, 144

    CrossRef

  10. 10
    Raphaël P. Hammer, Claudine Burton-Jeangros, Tensions around risks in pregnancy: A typology of women's experiences of surveillance medicine, Social Science & Medicine, 2013, 93, 55

    CrossRef

  11. You have free access to this content11
    Alison Pilnick, Olga Zayts, ‘Let’s have it tested first’: choice and circumstances in decision-making following positive antenatal screening in Hong Kong, Sociology of Health & Illness, 2012, 34, 2
  12. 12
    Katherine Carroll, Catherine Waldby, Informed Consent and Fresh Egg Donation for Stem Cell Research, Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 2012, 9, 1, 29

    CrossRef

  13. 13
    Mianna Meskus, Personalized ethics: The emergence and the effects in prenatal testing, BioSocieties, 2012, 7, 4, 373

    CrossRef

  14. 14
    Eugene Pergament, Deborah Pergament, Reproductive decisions after fetal genetic counselling, Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 2012, 26, 5, 517

    CrossRef

  15. 15
    Natalie Armstrong, Helen Eborall, The sociology of medical screening: past, present and future, Sociology of Health & Illness, 2012, 34, 2
  16. 16
    Emma F. France, Sally Wyke, Sue Ziebland, Vikki A. Entwistle, Kate Hunt, How personal experiences feature in women’s accounts of use of information for decisions about antenatal diagnostic testing for foetal abnormality, Social Science & Medicine, 2011, 72, 5, 755

    CrossRef

  17. 17
    Kelly Amanda Raspberry, Debra Skinner, Negotiating desires and options: How mothers who carry the fragile X gene experience reproductive decisions, Social Science & Medicine, 2011, 72, 6, 992

    CrossRef

  18. 18
    Claudine Burton-Jeangros, Surveillance of risks in everyday life: The agency of pregnant women and its limitations, Social Theory & Health, 2011, 9, 4, 419

    CrossRef

  19. 19
    Alison Pilnick, Olga Zayts, ‘Let's have it Tested First’: Choice and Circumstances in Decision-Making Following Positive Antenatal Screening in Hong Kong,
  20. 20
    Natalie Armstrong, Helen Eborall, The Sociology of Medical Screening: Past, Present and Future,