Preparation for prenatal decision-making: a baseline of knowledge and reflection in women participating in prenatal screening

References

• Muhkerjee K. Thinking styles and risky decision making: further exploration of the affect-probablity weighting link. J Exp Psych 2011;24:443–55
   Google Scholar
• Jordi R. Reframing the concept of reflection: consciousness, experiential learning, and reflective learning practices. Adult Ed Quart 2011;61:181–97
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuppermann M, Norton ME, Gates E, et al. Computerized genetic testing decision-assisting tool: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2008;113:53–63
   Google Scholar
• McCoyd JLM. Pregnancy interrupted: loss of a desired pregnancy after diagnosis of fetal anomaly. J Psych Obs Gyn 2007;28:37–48
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCoyd JLM. What do women want?: Experiences and reflections of women after prenatal diagnosis and termination for anomaly. Health Care Wom Intl 2009;30:507–35
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• St-Jacques S, Grenier S, Charland M, et al. Decisional needs assessment regarding Down Syndrome prenatal testing: a systemic review of the perceptions of women, their partners and health professionals. Prenat Diagn 2008;28:1183–203
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korenromp MJ, Page-Chirstiaens GCML, van den Bout J, et al. Psychological consequences of termination of pregnancy for fetal anomaly: similarities and differences between partners. Prenat Diagn 2005;25:1226–33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandelowski M, Barroso J. The travesty of choosing after positive prenatal diagnosis. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2005;34:307–18
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ivry T. At the back stage of prenatal care: Japanese Ob-Gyns negotiating prenatal diagnosis. Med Anthropol Quar 2006;20:441–68
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell LM, Georges E. Baby’s first picture. In: Davis-Floyd R, Dumit J, eds. Cyborg babies: from techno-sex to techno-tots. New York: Routledge; 1991:105–24
   Google Scholar
• Nicols M. Vulnerability of first-time expectant mothers during ultrasound scans: an evaluation of the external pressures that influence the process of informed choice. Health Care Women Int 2007;28:525–33
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Santalahti P, Hemminki E, Latikka A, Ryynaen M. Women’s decision-making in prenatal screening. Soc Sci Med 1998;46:1067–76
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zechmeister 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCoyd JLM. Women in no man’s land: the U.S. abortion debate and women terminating desired pregnancies due to fetal anomaly. Br J Soc Work 2010;40:133–53. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcn080
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rapp R. Testing women: testing the fetus. New York: Routledge Press; 2000
   Google Scholar
• Alan Guttmacher Institute. A global review of laws on induced abortion, 1985–1997 [WWW document]. URL http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2405698.pdf [last accessed 10 Feb 2010]
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1982
   Google Scholar
• Luce MF. Decision making as coping. Health Psychol 2005;24:S23–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haight J. The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol Rev 2001;10:814–34
   Google Scholar
• Lobel M, Dias L, Meyer, BA. Distress associated with prenatal screening for fetal abnormality. J Behav Med 2005;28:65–76
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White RJ. A priming/temperament model of System 1 and System 2 decision-making processes. Diss Abs Int: Sect B Sci Eng 2005;66:3439
   Google Scholar
• Denkinger B, Koutstaal W. Perceive-decide-act, perceive-decide-act: how abstract is repetition-related decision learning? J Exp Psychol 2009;35:742–56.
   Google Scholar
• Lippman A. Embodied knowledge and making sense of prenatal diagnosis. J Genet Couns 1999;8:255–74
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Winkielman P, Knutson B, Paulus M, Trujillo JL. Affective influence on judgments and decisions: moving towards core mechanisms. Rev Gen Psychol 2007;11:179–92
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon LT, Shapiro AM. Priming correct information reduces misinformation effect. Mem Cogn 2012;40:717–26
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• New Jersey Quick Facts, U.S. Census Bureau [WWW document]. URL http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/34000.html [last accessed 12 Feb 2010]
   Google Scholar
• Fisher J. First-trimester screening: dealing with the fall-out. Prenat Diagn 2011;31:46–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Planned Parenthood. Pregnancy options[WWW document]. URL http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/pregnancy [last accessed 12 Feb 2010]
   Google Scholar
• McCoyd JLM. The implicit contract: implications for health social work. Health Soc Work 2010;35:99–106
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Parkes CM. Bereavement as a psychosocial transition: processes of adaptation to change. J Soc Iss 1988;44:53–65
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rauch E, Smullian JC, DePrince K, et al. Pregnancy interruption after 2nd trimester diagnosis of fetal structural anomalies: the New Jersey Fetal Abnormalities Registry. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;193:1492–97
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schectman KB, Gray DL, Baty JD, Rothman SM. Decision-making for termination of pregnancies with fetal anomalies: analysis of 53,000 pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 2002;99:216–22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray CH. Cyborg citizen. New York: Routledge; 2002
   Google Scholar
• Sandelowski M. Channel of desire: fetal ultrasonography in two use-contexts. Qual Health Res 1994;4:262–80
   Google Scholar
• Eisenberg A, Murkoff HE, Hathaway SE. What to expect when you’re expecting. 2nd ed. New York: Workman Publishing; 1991/1984
   Google Scholar
• Thomas E, Usher L. One more hurdle to increasing mammography screening: pubescent, adolescent and prior mammography screening experiences. Women Health Iss 2009;19:425–33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar