References

Adams RJ, Stocks NJ, Wilson DH, Hill CL, Gravier S, Kickbusch I, Beilby JJ. Health literacy – a concept for general practice?. Australian Family Physician. 2009; 38:144-147

Ahmed S, Bryant LD, Cole P. Midwives' perceptions of their role as facilitators of informed choice in antenatal screening. Midwifery. 2013; 29:745-750 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; 4:113-120 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.srhc.2013.08.002

Benn P, Borrell A, Chiu RWK, Cuckle H, Dugoff L, Faas B, Gross S, Huang T, Johnson J, Maymon R, Norton M, Odibo A, Schielen P, Spencer K, Wright D, Yaron Y. Position statement from the Chromosome Abnormality Screening Committee on behalf of the Board of the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis. Prenatal Diagnosis. 2015; 35:1-10 https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4608

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

Beulen L, van den Berg M, Faas BH, Feenstra I, Hageman M, van Vugt JM, Bekker MN. 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; 24:1409-1416 https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2016.39

Centre for Health Care Strategies. Strategies to improve patient education materials: fact sheet. 2013. https://www.chcs.org/ (accessed 22 September 2014)

Dahl K, Kesmodel U, Hvidman L, Olesen F. Informed consent: providing information about prenatal examinations. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2006; 85:1420-1425 https://doi.org/10.1080/00016340600985198

Deane-Gray T. Effective Communication. In: Peate I, Hamilton C (eds). Sussex: John Wiley and Sons; 2008

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

de Jong A, Dondorp WJ, Macville MV, de Die-Smulders CE, van Lith JM, de Wert GM. 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

Department of Health. Safer screening test for pregnant women. 2016. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/safer-screening-test-for-pregnant-women (accessed 11 November 2016)

DeWalt DA, Berkman ND, Sherida S, Lohr KN, Pignone MP. Literacy and health outcomes: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2004; 19:(12)1228-1239 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.40153.x

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)346-352 https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyi021

Dowswell T, Carroli G, Duley L, Gates S, Gulmezoglu AM, Khan-Neelofur D, Piaggio GG. Alternative versus standard packages of antenatal care for low-risk pregnancy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Review. 2015; https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000934.pub3

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. 2007; 146:(A)174-181 https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.32068

Etchegary H, Nicholls SG, Tessier L, Simmonds C, Potter BK, Brehaut JC, Pullman D, Hayeems R, Zelemietz S, Lamoureux M, Milburn J, Turner L, Cakraborty P, Wilson B. Consent for newborn screening: parents' and health-care professionals' experiences of consent in practice. European Journal of Human Genetics. 2016; 24:(11)1530-1534 https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2016.55

Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1948; 32:221-233 https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057532

Flesch JR, Kincaid C. Flesch-Kincaid readability formula.Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 1965

Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M. Who profits from visual aids: overcoming challenges in people's understanding of risks. Social Science and Medicine. 2010; 70:(7)1019-1025 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.11.031

Glover V. Maternal depression, anxiety and stress during pregnancy and child outcome; what needs to be done. Best Practice and Research Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2014; 28:(1)25-35 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2013.08.017

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

Howell W. The emphatic communicator.Pacific Grove: Wadsworth; 1982

John S. MUSIC for midwives: a framework for Down syndrome communication during antenatal booking appointments.: University of South Wales; 2017

John S., Kirk M, Tonkin E, Stuart-Hamilton I. A new tool to assess understanding of Down syndrome screening information presented by midwives. British Journal of Midwifery. 2019; 27:(11)675-738 https://doi.org/10.12968/bjom.2019.27.11.694

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

Kirk M, Tonkin E, Birmingham K. Working with publishers: a novel approach to ascertaining practitioners' needs in genetics education. Journal of Research in Nursing. 2007; 12:(6)597-615 https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987107083035

Kountz DS. Strategies for improving low health literacy. Postgraduate Medicine. 2009; 121:(5)171-177 https://doi.org/10.3810/pgm.2009.09.2065

Lagan BM, Sinclair M, Kernohan WG. A web-based survey of midwives' perceptions of women using the internet in pregnancy: a global phenomenon. Midwifery. 2011; 27:273-281 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2009.07.002

Lewis C, Hill M, Silcock C, Daley R, Chitty LS. Non-invasive prenatal testing for trisomy 21: a cross-sectional survey of service users' views and likely uptake. BJOG. 2014; 121:582-594 https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12579

McCourt C. Supporting choice and control? Communication and interaction between midwives and women at the antenatal booking visit. Social Science and Medicine. 2006; 62:1307-1318 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.07.031

Mercer MB, Agatisa PK, Farrell RM. What patients are reading about noninvasive prenatal testing: an evaluation of Internet content and implications for patient-centered care. Prenatal Diagnosis. 2014; 34:(10)986-993 https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4410

Munthe C. A new ethical landscape of prenatal testing: individualizing choice to serve autonomy and promote public health: a radical proposal. Bioethics. 2015; 29:(1)36-45 https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12126

National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Antenatal care for uncomplicated pregnancies. 2019. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg62/resources/antenatal-care-for-uncomplicated-pregnancies-975564597445 (accessed 26 November 2019)

Nursing and Midwifery Council. The code: professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses, midwives and nursing associates. 2018. https://www.nmc.org.uk/globalassets/sitedocuments/nmc-publications/nmc-code.pdf (accessed 12 May 2019)

Paradice R. Psychology for Midwives.Dinton: Wiltshire; 2002

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)525-534 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04449.x

Roter DL, Erby L, Hall JA, Larson S, Ellington L, Dudley W. Nonverbal sensitivity: consequences for learning and satisfaction in genetic counseling. Health Education. 2008; 108:(5)397-410 https://doi.org/10.1108/09654280810900017

Roter DL, Erby L, Larson S, Ellington L. Assessing oral literacy demand in genetic counselling 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; 75:392-397 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2009.01.005

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

Silcock C, Lih-Mei L, Hill M, Chitty LS. Will the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing for Down's syndrome undermine informed choice?. Health Expectations. 18:(5)1658-1671 https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12159

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

Stockmeyer NO. Using Microsoft Word's Readability Programme. Michigan Bar Journal. 2009; 88:46-47

Tsouroufli M. Routinisation and constraints on informed choice in a one-stop clinic offering first trimester chromosomal antenatal screening for Down's syndrome. Midwifery. 2011; 27:(4)431-436 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2010.02.011

UK National Screening Committee. Antenatal screening – working standards for Down's syndrome screening: National Down's Syndrome screening programmes for England. 2007. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20150408175925/ (accessed 25 September 2019)

UK National Screening Committee. UK NSC non-invasive prenatal testing recommendation. 2016. http://legacy.screening.nhs.uk/fetalanomalies (accessed 25 January 2016)

van Schendel RV, Kater-Kuipers A, van Vliet-Lachotzki V, Dondorp WJ, Cornel MC, Henneman L. What do parents of children with Down syndrome think about non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT)?. Journal of Genetic Counseling. 2016; 26:(3)522-531 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-016-0012-4

Influence of midwife communication on women's understanding of Down syndrome screening information

02 December 2019
20 min read
Volume 27 · Issue 12

Abstract

Aim

To analyse how midwives communicate Down syndrome screening information and explore whether women's understanding of this information is influenced by midwives' communicative style.

Methods

Midwives (n=16) and women (n=100) were recruited from a regional NHS unit in the UK. A mixed-methods design encompassed two components; audio-recorded antenatal consultations to assess midwives' communication and quantitative surveys to assess women's understanding.

Findings

Midwife communication was not significantly related to women's understanding of Down syndrome screening information. However, qualitative thematic analysis revealed midwife communication was often insufficient in fully describing Down syndrome and screening. Communication was not very interactive, midwives dominated conversations and did not sufficiently check women's knowledge/understanding.

Conclusions

Policymakers need to consider these findings. Deficits in midwife communication in relation to established screening practice needs to be addressed through additional training ahead of full implementation of non-invasive prenatal testing into midwifery practice.

All pregnant women in England, Wales and Scotland are offered screening for Down syndrome at their first antenatal (booking) appointment with their midwife (UK National Screening Committee [UK NSC], 2007). Information provided by midwives aim to enable women to make an informed choice to accept or reject screening (de Jong et al, 2014).

With the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) into the NHS, ensuring women are making informed decisions is vital due to the test's increased accuracy (UK NSC, 2016). If midwives can effectively communicate current Down syndrome screening infor mation and support infor med decision-making, then it will be easier to incorporate NIPT into practice.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence ([NICE], 2019) guidelines for antenatal care outline that ‘good communication between healthcare professionals and women is essential’; language is key to this. However, oral and written health information is often too complex for the average individual to understand (DeWalt et al, 2004). In attempting to describe aspects of language which could enhance understanding, Adams et al (2009) suggest using plain language, limited ‘medical jargon’, diagrams and checking clients' understanding.

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