Exploring measurement tools used to assess knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of pregnant women toward prenatal screening: A systematic review.

Lea Sacca, Yasmine Zerrouki, Sara Burgoa, Goodness Okwaraji, Ashlee Li, Shaima Arshad, Maria Gerges, Stacey Tevelev, Sophie Kelly, Michelle Knecht, Panagiota Kitsantas, Robert Hunter, Laurie Scott, Alexis Piccoli Reynolds, Gabriela Colon, Michele Retrouvey
{"title":"Exploring measurement tools used to assess knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of pregnant women toward prenatal screening: A systematic review.","authors":"Lea Sacca, Yasmine Zerrouki, Sara Burgoa, Goodness Okwaraji, Ashlee Li, Shaima Arshad, Maria Gerges, Stacey Tevelev, Sophie Kelly, Michelle Knecht, Panagiota Kitsantas, Robert Hunter, Laurie Scott, Alexis Piccoli Reynolds, Gabriela Colon, Michele Retrouvey","doi":"10.1177/17455057241273557","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is a lack of standardized measurement tools globally to assess knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of expecting women toward prenatal screening. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify reasons women pursue or decline prenatal screening and compare the strengths and limitations of available measurement tools used to assess pregnant women's perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes toward prenatal screening. This review followed the five-step York methodology by Arksey and O'Malley and incorporated recommendations from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis checklist for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results. The five steps consisted of: (1) identification of the research questions; (2) searching for relevant studies; (3) selection of studies relevant to the research questions; (4) data charting; and (5) collation, summarization, and reporting of results. Four online databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) were selected after the librarian's development of a detailed search strategy. The Rayyan platform was used between June 2023 and August 2023 to epitomize the articles produced from our search. A total of 68 eligible studies were included in the analysis. The top five major reasons for declining prenatal screening uptake included (1) being unsure of the risk of prenatal screening and harm to the baby or miscarriage (<i>n</i> = 15), (2) not considering action such as termination of pregnancy for prenatal screening to be considered as necessary (<i>n</i> = 14), (3) high cost (<i>n</i> = 12), (4) lack of knowledge about testing procedures and being anxious about the test (<i>n</i> = 10), and (5) being worried about probability of false negative or false positive results (<i>n</i> = 6). Only 32 studies utilized scientifically validated instruments. Difficulties in capturing representative, adequately sized samples inclusive of diverse ethnicities and demographics were pervasive. Findings highlight the need for rigorous validation of research measurement methodologies to ensure the accuracy and applicability of resulting data regarding the assessment of prenatal screening perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes across diverse female populations.<b>Registration:</b> N/A.</p>","PeriodicalId":75327,"journal":{"name":"Women's health (London, England)","volume":"20 ","pages":"17455057241273557"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11363050/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Women's health (London, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17455057241273557","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is a lack of standardized measurement tools globally to assess knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of expecting women toward prenatal screening. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify reasons women pursue or decline prenatal screening and compare the strengths and limitations of available measurement tools used to assess pregnant women's perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes toward prenatal screening. This review followed the five-step York methodology by Arksey and O'Malley and incorporated recommendations from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis checklist for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results. The five steps consisted of: (1) identification of the research questions; (2) searching for relevant studies; (3) selection of studies relevant to the research questions; (4) data charting; and (5) collation, summarization, and reporting of results. Four online databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) were selected after the librarian's development of a detailed search strategy. The Rayyan platform was used between June 2023 and August 2023 to epitomize the articles produced from our search. A total of 68 eligible studies were included in the analysis. The top five major reasons for declining prenatal screening uptake included (1) being unsure of the risk of prenatal screening and harm to the baby or miscarriage (n = 15), (2) not considering action such as termination of pregnancy for prenatal screening to be considered as necessary (n = 14), (3) high cost (n = 12), (4) lack of knowledge about testing procedures and being anxious about the test (n = 10), and (5) being worried about probability of false negative or false positive results (n = 6). Only 32 studies utilized scientifically validated instruments. Difficulties in capturing representative, adequately sized samples inclusive of diverse ethnicities and demographics were pervasive. Findings highlight the need for rigorous validation of research measurement methodologies to ensure the accuracy and applicability of resulting data regarding the assessment of prenatal screening perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes across diverse female populations.Registration: N/A.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
探索用于评估孕妇对产前筛查的知识、态度和看法的测量工具:系统综述。
全球范围内缺乏标准化的测量工具来评估孕妇对产前筛查的认识、态度和看法。本系统性综述的目的是找出妇女接受或拒绝产前筛查的原因,并比较用于评估孕妇对产前筛查的看法、知识和态度的现有测量工具的优势和局限性。本综述采用了 Arksey 和 O'Malley 提出的约克五步方法,并采纳了《系统综述和元分析首选报告项目》(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis checklist)中关于提取、分析和呈现结果的建议。这五个步骤包括:(1) 确定研究问题;(2) 搜索相关研究;(3) 选择与研究问题相关的研究;(4) 绘制数据图表;(5) 整理、总结和报告结果。在图书管理员制定了详细的搜索策略后,选择了四个在线数据库(PubMed、Embase、Web of Science 和 Cochrane Library)。在 2023 年 6 月至 2023 年 8 月期间,我们使用 Rayyan 平台对搜索到的文章进行了缩略。共有 68 项符合条件的研究被纳入分析。拒绝接受产前筛查的五大主要原因包括:(1)不确定产前筛查的风险和对婴儿的伤害或流产(n = 15);(2)不考虑采取终止妊娠等行动,认为产前筛查是必要的(n = 14);(3)费用高昂(n = 12);(4)对检测程序缺乏了解,对检测感到焦虑(n = 10);(5)担心出现假阴性或假阳性结果的概率(n = 6)。只有 32 项研究使用了经过科学验证的工具。在采集具有代表性、规模适当的样本(包括不同种族和人口)方面普遍存在困难。研究结果凸显了对研究测量方法进行严格验证的必要性,以确保在评估不同女性群体对产前筛查的看法、知识和态度时,所得数据的准确性和适用性:不适用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Physical violence and its associations: Insights from nationally representative data in India. Unlocking breast cancer in Brazilian public health system: Using tissue microarray for accurate immunohistochemical evaluation with limitations in subtyping. Improving access, understanding, and dignity during miscarriage recovery in British Columbia, Canada: A patient-oriented research study. Common maternal health problems and their correlates in early post-partum mothers. Empowered management for pelvic pain: The experiences of women with persistent pelvic pain participating in an online self-directed self-management program while they wait for interprofessional care.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1