References

Adams RJ, Stocks NP, Wilson DH Health literacy – a new concept for general practice?. Australian Family Physician.. 2009; 38:(3)144-147

Ahmed S, Bryant LD, Cole P Midwives' perceptions of their role as facilitators of informed choice in antenatal screening. Midwifery.. 2013; 29:(7)745-750 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2012.07.006

Andersson E, Christensson K, Hildingsson I Mothers' satisfaction with group antenatal care versus individual antenatal care – a clinical trial. Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare.. 2013; 4:(3)113-120 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.srhc.2013.08.002

Beukeboom CJ, Tanis M, Vermeulen IE The language of extraversion: extraverted people talk more abstractly, introverts are more concrete. Journal of Language and Social Psychology.. 2013; 32:(2)191-201 https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X12460844

Beukeboom CJ Mechanisms of linguistic bias: How words reflect and maintain stereotypic expectancies. In: Laszlo J, Forgas J., Vincze O New York: Psychology Press; 2014

Beulen L, van den Berg M, Faas BHW The effect of a decision aid on informed decision-making in the era of non-invasive prenatal testing: a randomised controlled trial. European Journal of Human Genetics.. 2016; 24:(10)1409-1416 https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2016.39

Bilker WB, Hansen JA, Brensinger CM Development of abbreviated nine-item forms of the Raven's standard progressive matrices test. Assessment.. 2012; 19:(3)354-369 https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191112446655

Burke S., Bennett C., Bedward J., Farndon P The experiences and preferences of people receiving genetic information from healthcare professionals. Birmingham: NHS National Genetics Education and Development Centre.. 2007; 1-43

Bryant LD, Green JM, Hewison J The role of attitudes towards the targets of behaviour in predicting and informing prenatal testing choices. Psychology and Health.. 2010; 25:(10)1175-1194 https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440903055893

Cacioppo JT, Petty RE The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.. 1982; 42:(1)116-131 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116

Cacioppo JT, Petty RE, Feng Kao C The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment.. 1984; 48:(3)306-307 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13

Cacioppo JT, Petty RE, Feinstein JA, Jarvis WBG Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: the life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin.. 1996; 119:(2)197-253 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197

Campbell WH, Ritchie AJ Proverb interpretation in forensic evaluations. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.. 2002; 27:24-27

New Jersey: Centre for Health Care Strategies; 2013

Coaley KLondon: Sage; 2009

Cohen AR, Stotland E, Wolfe DM An experimental investigation of need for cognition. J Abnorm Psychol.. 1955; 51:(2)291-294

Cole M Cognitive development and formal schooling: The evidence from cross-cultural research. In: Moll LC Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990

Deane-Gray T Effective communication. In: Peate I, Hamilton C Chicester, West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons; 2008

Deery R, Fisher P ‘Switching and swapping faces’: performativity and emotion in midwifery. International Journal of Work Organisation and Emotion.. 2010; 3:(3)270-286 https://doi.org/10.1504/IJWOE.2010.032926

de Jong A, Dondorp WJ, Macville MVE Microarrays as a diagnostic tool in prenatal screening strategies: ethical reflection. Human Genetics.. 2014; 133:(2)163-172 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-013-1365-5

Dormandy E, Michie S, Hooper R, Marteau TM Low uptake of prenatal screening for Down syndrome in minority ethnic groups and socially deprived groups: a reflection of women's attitudes or a failure to facilitate informed choices?. International Journal of Epidemiology.. 2005; 34:(2)346-52 https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyi021

Dormandy E, Michie S, Hooper R, Marteau TM Informed choice in antenatal Down syndrome screening: a cluster-randomised trial of combined versus separate visit testing. Patient Education and Counselling.. 2006; 61:(1)56-64 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2005.02.006

Dowswell T, Carroli G, Duley L Alternative versus standard packages of antenatal care for low-risk pregnancy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.. 2010; 6:(10) https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000934.pub2

Erby LH, Roter D, Larson S, Cho J The rapid estimate of adult literacy in genetics (REAL-G): a means to assess literacy deficits in the context of genetics. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A.. 2008; 146A:(2)174-181 https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.32068

Fitzpatrick R, Hopkins ALondon: Royal College of Physicians of London; 1993

Flesch R A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol.. 1948; 32:(3)221-33 https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057532

Flesch JR, Kincaid CBoston: Houghton Mifflin; 1965

Gekas J, Langlois S, Ravitsky V Non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal chromosome abnormalities: review of clinical and ethical issues. The Application of Clinical Genetics.. 2016; 9:15-26 https://doi.org/10.2147/TACG.S85361

Gorham DR A proverbs test for clinical and experimental use. Psychological Reports.. 1956; 2:(1)1-12

Haines HM, Hildingsson I, Pallant JF, Rubertsson C The role of women's attitudinal profiles in satisfaction with the quality of their antenatal and intrapartum care. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecology and Neonatal Nursing.. 2013; 42:(4)428-441 https://doi.org/10.1111/1552-6909.12221

Heim AWLondon: Oxford University Press; 1975

Hunter B The importance of reciprocity in relationships between community-based midwives and mothers. Midwifery.. 2006; 22:(4)308-322 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2005.11.002

John S: University of South Wales; 2017

Jones S, 2nd edn.. Petersfield, Hampshire: Harriman House; 2010

Keating D Adolescent thinking. In: Adelson J New York: Wiley; 1979

Kim KS Interviewing: beginning to see each other, 2nd edn.. In: Uhlmann WR, Scuhette JL, Yashar B New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009

Koenke K Readability formula use and misuse. Read Teach.. 1987; 40:672-674

Leap N, Hunter BLondon: Scarlet Press; 1993

Lehman DR, Nisbett RE A longitudinal study of the effects of undergraduate training on reasoning. Developmental Psychology.. 1990; 26:(6)952-960 https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.26.6.952

Ley P Cognitive variables and non-compliance. J Compliance Health Care.. 1986; 1:171-188

Marshalek B, Lohman DF, Snow RE The complexity continuum in the radex and hierarchical models of intelligence. Intelligence.. 1983; 7:(2)107-127 https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2896(83)90023-5

Michie S, Marteau T Genetic counselling: some issues of theory and practice. In: Marteau T, Richards M Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1996

Nelson HEWindsor: NFER-Nelson; 1982

Norton ME, Jacobsson B, Swamy GK, Laurent LC, Ranzini AC, Brar H, Tomlinson MW, Pereira L, Spitz JL, Hollemon D, Cuckle H, Musci TJ, Wapner RJ Cell-free DNA analysis for non invasive examination of trisomy. The New England Journal of Medicine.. 2015; 372:1589-1597

Ormond KE From genetic counseling to “genomic counseling”. Molecular Genetics and Genomic Medicine.. 2013; 1:(4)189-193 https://doi.org/10.1002/mgg3.45

Paradice RDinton, Wiltshire: Quay Books; 2002

Parry R, Stuart-Hamilton I Animism begins at forty: evidence that animism and other naïve beliefs are established before the onset of old age. Educational Gerontology.. 2010; 36:(10–11)1043-1050 https://doi.org/10.1080/03601271003756594

Piaget J Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human Development.. 1972; 15:(1)1-12 https://doi.org/10.1159/000271225

Pope R, Cooney M, Graham L, Holliday M, Patel S Aspects of care 6: continuing educational needs of midwives 2. British Journal of Midwifery.. 1998; 6:(5)298-302 https://doi.org/10.12968/bjom.1998.6.5.298

Porter S, Crozier K, Sinclair M, Kernohan WG New midwifery? A qualitative analysis of midwives' decision-making strategies. Journal of Advanced Nursing.. 2007; 60:(5)525-34 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04449.x

Raven JCLondon: HK Lewis; 1962

Roter DL, Erby LH, Larson S, Ellington L Assessing oral literacy demand in genetic counseling dialogue: preliminary test of a conceptual framework. Social Science and Medicine.. 2007; 65:(7)1442-1457 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.05.033

Roter DL, Erby L, Larson S, Ellington L Oral literacy demand of prenatal genetic counseling dialogue: predictors of learning. Patient Education and Counseling.. 2009; 75:(3)392-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2009.01.005

Sadoski M, Kealy WA, Goetz ET, Paivio A Concreteness and imagery effects in the written composition of definitions. Journal of Educational Psychology.. 1997; 89:(3)518-526 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.518

Semin GR, Fiedler K The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.. 1988; 54:(4)558-568 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.558

Skirton H, Barr O Antenatal screening and informed choice: a cross-sectional survey of parents and professionals. Midwifery.. 2010; 26:(6)596-602 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2009.01.002

Sofaer S, Firminger K Patient perceptions of the quality of health services. Annual Review of Public Health.. 2005; 26:(1)513-559 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.25.050503.153958

Stern RA, Prohaska ML Neuropsychological evaluation of executive functioning. In: Dickstein LJ, Oldham JM, Riba MB 1996

Stuart-Hamilton I, McDonald L Do we need intelligence? Some reflections on the importance of “g”. Educational Gerontology.. 2001; 27:(5)399-407 https://doi.org/10.1080/03601270152053429

Tait AR, Voepel-Lewis T, Malviya S Factors that influence parents' assessments of the risks and benefits of research involving their children. Pediatrics.. 2004; 113:(4)727-32 https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.113.4.727

Tennant M, 3rd edn.. Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge; 2005

Thompson S, Noblin SJ, Lemons J, Peterson SJ, Carreno C, Harbison A perceptions of Latinas on the traditional prenatal genetic counseling model. Journal of Genetic Counseling.. 2015; 24:(4)675-82 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-014-9797-1

Exeter: UK National Screening Committee; 2016 https://legacyscreening.phe.org.uk/policydb_download.php?doc=602

Wechsler D, Coalson DL, Raiford SESan Antonio, TX: Pearson; 2008

Weil JNew York: Oxford University Press; 2000

A new tool to assess understanding of Down syndrome screening information presented by midwives

02 November 2019
Research
02 November 2019
Volume 27 · Issue 11

Abstract

Aim

To identify factors that could influence women's understanding of Down syndrome (DS) screening information presented by midwives.

Methods

Current literature was scrutinised. Components that could influence women's understanding were identified and a new framework was developed and refined. Measures were selected and developed to create a tool to assess the framework.

Findings

A new framework and assessment tool, measuring understanding of screening information and communication (MUSIC), was developed to assess women's understanding of DS screening information, their cognitive status and the midwives' communicative style.

Conclusion

This framework is the first of its kind, encompassing both women's cognitive status and midwife communication as an influence on women's understanding. Applying the framework and tool could inform midwifery practice by providing an insight into whether, to what extent and how, cognitive status influences understanding of DS screening information, the importance of tailoring information to each woman and highlighting areas of communication that are most effective.

In England, Wales and Scotland, all pregnant women are routinely offered antenatal screening for Down syndrome (DS) at the booking appointment, according to the UK National Screening Committee ([UKNSC], 2007). Screening information should increase knowledge in order for women to make informed decisions (de Jong et al, 2014). However, some women undergo screening even though they have relatively little knowledge of the test or the condition (Dormandy et al, 2006; Skirton and Barr, 2010).

Advances in genetic/genomic technology are revolutionising antenatal screening and the UK NSC, (2016) has recommended introducing non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) into the National Health Service (NHS) which is more accurate than current forms of screening (Norton et al, 2015). The way healthcare professionals present information is likely to influence screening uptake. Midwives should counsel women about NIPT in the same way as invasive testing because the tests carry similar diagnostic implications. If midwives can effectively communicate current screening information and support women's informed decision making, then it is anticipated that it will be easier to incorporate NIPT into practice.

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting British Journal of Midwifery and reading some of our peer-reviewed resources for midwives. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Limited access to our clinical or professional articles

  • New content and clinical newsletter updates each month

Register
Or continue by

Signing in with your registered email address

Down syndrome
Screening
Patient information
Framework