4.6 Article

A grounded theory study of information preference and coping styles following antenatal diagnosis of foetal abnormality

期刊

JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING
卷 64, 期 2, 页码 185-194

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04778.x

关键词

antenatal diagnosis; coping; foetal abnormality; grounded theory; information preferences; midwifery; obstetric ultrasound

类别

资金

  1. Health Research Board, Dublin, Ireland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim. This paper is a report of a study to explore the information-seeking behaviour of women following an antenatal diagnosis of foetal abnormality. Background. The identification of a foetal abnormality on routine ultrasound in pregnancy is both shocking and distressing for women, and seeking information in this stressful situation is a common response. There is evidence that women's information needs are not always adequately met, and in some cases they recall little from the initial consultation. Method. A longitudinal study involving 42 women was conducted using a classical grounded theory design. Data were collected in 2004-2006 through in-depth interviews at three time intervals: within 4-6 weeks of diagnosis, 4-6 weeks before the birth and 6-12 weeks postnatally. Findings. Women described their main concern from diagnosis until the time to give birth in terms of regulating the information received in order to cope with the situation. Two main categories were identified: 'Getting my head around it' and 'I'll cross that bridge when I come to it'. These two differing information-seeking preferences are described as monitoring and blunting. Conclusion. Matching of information preferences with coping styles may support individuals to cope with this stressful event. Women with high information needs (monitors) respond well to detail. However, those with information avoidance behaviours (blunters) should be facilitated to 'opt-in' to information when they are ready, in order to reduce the stress caused by perceived information overload.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据