• 1
    Bricker L, Garcia J, Henderson J, et al. Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and women’s views. Health Technol Assess 2000;4(16):1193.
  • 2
    Whittle M, Honest H. Antenatal Ultrasound Screening. Ultrasound Survey of England 2002. London, UK: National Health Service, 2005.
  • 3
    Ritchie K, Boynton J, Bradbury I, et al. Routine Ultrasound Scanning Before 24 Weeks of Pregnancy. Health Technology Assessment Report 5. Glasgow, UK: National Health Service Quality Improvement Scotland, 2004.
  • 4
    Lalor J, Devane D, Mc Parland P. Ultrasound Screening for Fetal Abnormality in Ireland: What’s Happening? Irish Perinatal Society Conference Proceedings, Dublin, 2006.
  • 5
    Ewigman B, Crane J, Frigoletto F, et al. Effect of prenatal ultrasound screening on perinatal outcome. N Engl J Med 1993;329:821827.
  • 6
    Grandjean H, Larroque D, Levi S. The performance of routine ultrasonographic screening of pregnancies in the Eurofetus study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181:446454.
  • 7
    Proud J. Understanding Obstetric Ultrasound. London, UK: Books for Midwives, 1994.
  • 8
    Baillie C, Smith J, Hewison J, Mason G. Ultrasound screening for chromosomal abnormality: Women’s reactions to false positive results. Br J Health Psychol 2000;5:377394.
  • 9
    Farrant W. Who’s for amniocentesis? The politics of prenatal screening. In: HomansH, ed. The Sexual Politics of Reproduction. London, UK: Gower, 1985:90177.
  • 10
    Green J, Snowdon C, Statham H. Pregnant women’s attitudes to abortion and prenatal screening. J Reprod Infant Psychol 1993;11:3139.
  • 11
    Statham H, Green J, Kafetsios K. Who worries that something might be wrong with the baby? A prospective study of 1072 pregnant women. Birth 1997;24(4):223233.
  • 12
    Statham H, Solomou W, Green J. When a Baby Has an Abnormality: A Study of Parents’ Experiences. Cambridge, UK: Centre for Family Research, University of Cambridge, 2001.
  • 13
    Ptacek JT, Eberhardt TL. Breaking bad news: A review of the literature. JAMA 1996;276:496502.
  • 14
    Hollingsworth J, Daly-Jones E. The sonographer’s dilemma. In: AbramskyL, ChappleJ, eds. Prenatal Diagnosis: The Human Side. 2nd ed. Cheltenham, UK: Nelson Thornes, 2003:98106.
  • 15
    Jorgensen C, Uddenberg N, Ursing I. Diagnosis of fetal malformation in the 32nd week of gestation: A psychological challenge to the woman and the doctor. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 1985;4:7382.
  • 16
    Maijala H, Astedt-Kurki P, Paavilainen E, Vaisanen L. Interaction between caregivers and families expecting a malformed child. J Adv Nurs 2003;42(1):3746.
  • 17
    Statham H, Solomou W, Chitty L. Prenatal diagnosis of fetal abnormality: Psychological effects on women in low-risk pregnancies. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2000;14(4):731747.
  • 18
    Alkazaleh F, Thomas M, Grebenyuk J, et al. What women want: Women’s preferences of caregiver behaviour when prenatal sonography findings are abnormal. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004;23:5662.
  • 19
    Hunfeld J, Wladimiroff J, Passchier J. Emotional reactions in women in late pregnancy (24 weeks or longer) following the ultrasound diagnosis of a severe or lethal fetal malformation. Prenat Diagn 1993;13:603612.
  • 20
    Burgoine G, Van Kirk S, Romm J, et al. Comparison of perinatal grief after dilation and evacuation of labor induction in second trimester terminations for fetal anomalies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192:19281932.
  • 21
    Zeanah C. Adaptation following perinatal loss: A critical review. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1989;28(3):467480.
  • 22
    Turton P, Hughes P, Evans C, Fainman D. The impact of mid-trimester abortion techniques on patients and staff. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1979;135:235238.
  • 23
    Brisch K, Munz D, Bemmerer-Mayer K, et al. Coping styles of pregnant women after prenatal ultrasound screening for fetal malformation. J Psychosom Res 2003;55:9197.
  • 24
    Statham H, Solomou W, Green J. Continuing a pregnancy after the diagnosis of an anomaly: Parents’ experiences. In: AbramskyL, ChappleJ, eds. Prenatal Diagnosis: The Human Side. 2nd ed. Cheltenham, UK: Nelson Thornes, 2003:164177.
  • 25
    Carvalho MHB, Brizot ML, Lopes LM, et al. Detection of fetal structural abnormalities at the 11–14 week ultrasound scan. Prenat Diagn 2002;22:14.
  • 26
    Sandelowski M, Corson Jones L. Couples’ evaluations of foreknowledge of fetal impairment. Clin Nurs Res 1996;5(1):8186.
  • 27
    Peller A, Westgate M, Holmes L. Trends in congenital malformations, 1974–1999: Effect of prenatal diagnosis and elective termination. Obstet Gynecol 2004;104(5, pt 1):957964.
  • 28
    Tymstra T, Bosboom J, Bouman K. Prenatal diagnosis of Down’s syndrome: Experiences of women who decided to continue with the pregnancy. Int J Risk Saf Med 2004;16:9196.
  • 29
    Mansfield C, Hopfer S, Marteau T. Termination rates after prenatal diagnosis of Down’s syndrome, spina bifida, anencephaly, and Turner and Klinefelter syndromes: A systematic literature review. Prenat Diagn 1999;19:808812.
  • 30
    Jorgensen C, Uddenberg N, Ursing I. Ultrasound diagnosis of fetal malformation in the second trimester: The psychological reactions of the women. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 1985;4:3140.
  • 31
    Green J, Statham H, Snowdon F. Screening for fetal abnormality: Attitudes and experiences. In: ChardT, RichardsM, eds. Obstetrics in the 1990s: Current Controversies. London, UK: Mac Keith Press, 1992:6589.
  • 32
    Chitty L, Barnes C, Berry C. Continuing with pregnancy after a diagnosis of lethal abnormality: Experience of five couples and recommendations for management. BMJ 1996;313:478480.
  • 33
    Edwins J. From a different planet: Women who choose to continue their pregnancy after a diagnosis of Down’s syndrome. Pract Midwife 2000;3(4):2124.
  • 34
    Finnemore P. Future Imperfect: Coping and Communication in Continuing Pregnancy after Diagnosis of Fetal Abnormality. London, UK: University of Middlesex, 2000.
  • 35
    Abramsky L, Chapple J. Prenatal Diagnosis: The Human Side. London, UK: Chapman & Hall, 1994.
  • 36
    Redlinger-Grosse K, Bernhardt B, Berg K, et al. The decision to continue: The experiences and needs of parents who receive a prenatal diagnosis of holoprosencephaly. Am J Med Genet 2002;112:369378.
  • 37
    Ralston S, Wertz D, Chelmow D, et al. Pregnancy outcomes after prenatal diagnosis of aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol 2001;97(5):729733.
  • 38
    Blumer H. Symbolic Interactionism. Perspective and Method. 1st paperback ed. Los Angeles, Calif: Prentice-Hall Inc, 1986.
  • 39
    Glaser B. Theoretical Sensitivity. San Francisco, Calif: Sociology Press, 1978.
  • 40
    Glaser B. Grounded Theory Perspective III: Theoretical Coding. San Francisco, Calif: Sociology Press, 2005.
  • 41
    Glaser B, Strauss A. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter, 1967.
  • 42
    Creswell JW. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. London: Sage, 1998.
  • 43
    Jasper MA. Issues in phenomenology for researchers of nursing. J Adv Nurs 1994;19:309314.
  • 44
    Schuth W, Karck U, Reisch S. Parent’s needs after ultrasound diagnosis of a fetal malformation: An empirical deficit analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1994;4:124129.
  • 45
    Garvin BJ, Kim C-J. Measurement of preference for information in U.S. and Korean cardiac catheterization patients. Res Nurs Health 2000;23:310318.
  • 46
    Holland JC, Almanza J. Giving bad news, is there a kinder, gentler way? Cancer 1999;86(5):738740.
  • 47
    Lalor J, Begley C. Fetal anomaly screening: What do women want to know? J Adv Nurs 55(1):1119.
  • 48
    Michie S, Dormandy E, Marteau TM. Informed choice: Understanding knowledge in the context of screening uptake. Patient Educ Couns 2003;50(3):247253.
  • 49
    Marteau T, Drake H, Bobrow M. Counselling following diagnosis of a fetal abnormality: The differing approaches of obstetricians, clinical geneticists and genetic nurses. J Med Ethics 1994;31:864867.
  • 50
    Drugen A, Greb A, Johnson M, et al. Determinants of parental decision to abort for chromosome abnormalities. Prenat Diagn 1990;10:483490.
  • 51
    Pryde P, Isada N, Hallak M, et al. Determinants of parental decision to abort or to continue after non-aneuploid ultrasound-detected fetal abnormalities. Obstet Gynecol 1992;80:5256.
  • 52
    RCOG. Report of the RCOG Working Party on Ultrasound Screening for Fetal Abnormalities. London, UK: RCOG Press, 1997.