Sexual & Reproductive HealthCare
Volume 1, Issue 3 , Pages 85-90 , August 2010

Effect of first-trimester ultrasound screening for Down syndrome on maternal–fetal attachment – A randomized controlled trial

  • S. Georgsson Öhman

      Affiliations

    • Sophiahemmet University College, Box 5605, SE-114 86 Stockholm, Sweden
    • Karolinska Institutet, Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, SE-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author at: Sophiahemmet University College, Box 5605, SE-114 86 Stockholm, Sweden.
    • ,
  • U. Waldenström

      Affiliations

    • Karolinska Institutet, Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, SE-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden

Received 14 December 2009 ,Revised 12 April 2010 ,Accepted 13 May 2010.

References 

  1. Baillie C, Hewison J, Mason G. Should ultrasound scanning in pregnancy be routine?. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 1999;17:149–157
  2. Ekelin M, Crang-Svalenius E, Dykes A-K. A qualitative study of mothers’ and fathers’ experiences of routine ultrasound examination in Sweden. Midwifery. 2004;20:335–344
  3. Georgsson Öhman S, Waldenström U. Second-trimester routine ultrasound screening: expectations and experiences in a nationwide Swedish sample. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;32(1):15–22
  4. Larsen T, Nguyen H, Munk M, Svendsen L, Teisner L. Ultrasound screening in the 2nd trimester. The pregnant woman’s background knowledge, expectations, experiences and acceptances. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000;15:383–386
  5. Bricker L, Garcia J, Henderson J, Mugford M, Neilson J, Roberts T, 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):1–193
  6. Williams C, Sandall J, Lwando-Hundt G, Heyman B, Spencer K, Grellier R. Women as moral pioneers? Experiences of first trimester antenatal screening. Social Sci Med. 2005;61:1983–1992
  7. Whynes DK. Receipt of information and women’s attitudes towards ultrasound scanning during pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002;19:7–12
  8. Getz L, Kirkengen AL. Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: advancing technology, soft markers for fetal chromosomal aberrations, and unacknowledged ethical dilemmas. Social Sci Med. 2003;56:2045–2057
  9. Bowlby J. Attachment, separation and loss. vol. 1. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin; 1969;
  10. Müller ME. Prenatal and postnatal attachment: a modest correlation. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 1996;25:161–166
  11. Cranley MS. Development of a tool for the measurement of maternal attachment during pregnancy. Nurs Res. 1981;30(5):281–284
  12. Alhausen JL. A literature update on maternal–fetal attachment. JOGNN. 2008;37:315–328
  13. Piontelli A. From fetus to child. An observational and psychoanalytical study. London: Tavistock, Routledge; 1992;
  14. Yarcheski A, Mahon NE, Yarcheski TJ, Hanks MM, Cannela BL. A meta-analytic study of predictors of maternal–fetal attachment. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009;46(5):708–715
  15. Heidrich SM, Cranley MS. Effect of fetal movement, ultrasound scans and amniocentesis on maternal–fetal attachment. Nurs Res. 1989;38:81–84
  16. Lerum CW, LoBiondo-Wood G. The relationship of maternal age, quickening and physical symptoms of pregnancy to the development of maternal–fetal attachment. Birth. 1989;16(1):13–17
  17. Siddiqui A, Hägglöf B. Does maternal prenatal attachment predict postnatal mother–infant interaction?. Early Human Develop. 2000;59(1):13–25
  18. Condon JT, Corkindale C. The correlates of antenatal attachment in pregnant women. Brit J Med Psychol. 1997;66:167–183
  19. Stormer N. Seeing the fetus: the role of technology and image in the maternal–fetal relationship. J Am Med Assoc. 2003;289:1700
  20. Zeichmeister I. Foetal images: the power of visual technology in antenatal care and the implications for women’s reproductive freedom. Health Care Anal. 2001;9:387–400
  21. Lumely J. Through a glass darkly: ultrasound and prenatal bonding. Birth. 1990;17(4):214–217
  22. Sandbrook SP, Adamson-Macedo EN. Maternal–fetal attachment: searching for a new definition. Nuro Endocrinol Lett. 2004;25:169–182
  23. Caccia N, Johnson JM, Robinson GE, Barna T. Impact of prenatal testing on maternal–fetal bonding: chorionic villus sampling versus amniocentesis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;165:1122–1125
  24. Righetti PL, Dell’Avanzo MD, Grigio M, Nicolini U. Maternal/paternal antenatal attachment and fourth-dimensional ultrasound technique: a preliminary report. Brit J Psychol. 2005;96:129–137
  25. Rustico MA, Mastromatteo C, Grigio M, Maggioni C, Gregori D, Nicolini U. Two-dimensional vs. two-plus four dimensional ultrasound in pregnancy and the effect on maternal emotional status. A randomized study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;25:468–472
  26. Sedgmen B, McMahon C, Cairns D, Benzie RJ, Woodfield RL. The impact of two-dimensional versus three-dimensional ultrasound exposure on maternal–fetal attachment and maternal health behavior in pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;27:245–251
  27. Pretorius DH, Gattu S, Ji E, Hollenbach K, Newton R, Hull A, et al. Preexamination and postexamination assessment of parental–fetal bonding in patients undergoing 3-/4-dimensional obstetric ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med. 2006;25:1411–1421
  28. Kleinveld JH, Timmermans DRM, van den Berg M, van Eijk JTH, Ten Kate LP. Does offering and performing prenatal screening influence women’s attachment to their unborn child? A longitudinal randomized controlled trial. Prenat Diagn. 2007;27:757–764
  29. Boukydis CF, Treadwell MC, Delaney Black V, Boyes K, King M, Robinson T, et al. Women’s responses to ultrasound examinations during routine screens in an obstetric clinic. J Ultrasound Med. 2006;25:721–728
  30. Rowe H, Fisher J, Quinlivan J. Women who are well informed about prenatal genetic screening delay emotional attachment to their fetus. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol. 2009;30(1):34–41
  31. Saltvedt S, Almström H, Kublickas M, Valentin L, Bottinga R, Bui TH, et al. Screening for Down syndrome based on maternal age or fetal nuchal translucency: a randomized controlled trial in 39,572 pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;25:537–545
  32. Raphael-Leff J. Psychological processes of childbearing. London: Chapman & Hall; 1992;
  33. Bloom KC. The development of attachment behaviours in pregnant adolescents. Nurs Res. 1995;44(5):284–289
  34. Lindgren K. Relationships among maternal–fetal attachment, prenatal depression, and health practises in pregnancy. Res Nurs Health. 2001;24:203–217
  35. Shieh C, Kravitz M, Wang HH. What do we know about maternal–fetal attachment?. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2001;17:448–454
  36. Cannella BL. Maternal–fetal attachment: an integrative review. J Adv Nurs. 2005;50(1):60–68
  37. Hedrick J. The lived experience of pregnancy while carrying a child with a known, nonlethal congenital abnormality. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2005;34(6):732–740
  38. Georgsson Öhman S, Grunewald C, Waldenström U. Women’s worries during pregnancy: testing the Cambridge Worry Scale on 200 Swedish women. Scand J Caring Sci. 2003;17:148–152
  39. Wickberg B, Hwang CP. The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale: validation on a Swedish community sample. Acta Psychiat Scand. 1996;94(3):181–184
  40. Georgsson Öhman S, Saltvedt S, Grunewald C, Waldenström U. Does fetal screening affect women’s worries about the health of their baby. A randomized controlled trial of ultrasound screening for Down’s syndrome versus routine ultrasound screening. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004;83:634–640
  41. Östberg M, Hagekull B, Wettergren S. A measure of parental stress in mothers with small children: dimensionality, stability and validity. Scand J Psychol. 1997;38:199–208

PII: S1877-5756(10)00024-8

doi: 10.1016/j.srhc.2010.05.002

Sexual & Reproductive HealthCare
Volume 1, Issue 3 , Pages 85-90 , August 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution