Transvaginal ultrasound in pregnancy: its acceptability to women and maternal psychological morbidity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the acceptability to women of antenatal transvaginal ultrasound scans; to compare the characteristics of women who accept the offer of a transvaginal scan with those who decline; to establish the prevalence of any psychological morbidity associated with the scan. METHODS: The study was a cross-sectional questionnaire survey. Women were recruited from two hospitals in South London. The sample consisted of 755 pregnant women who had a transvaginal scan at 23 weeks' gestation to assess the risk of preterm delivery and 167 women who were offered the transvaginal scan but declined. Women completed a questionnaire at home. Those who reported finding the scan a difficult experience were sent a questionnaire 4 weeks post-scan to assess its longer term impact. The main outcomes were acceptability (assessed by individual questionnaire items); anxiety before and during the scan (Spielberger State-trait Anxiety Inventory); pain during the scan (Present Pain Intensity Scale of the McGill Pain Questionnaire); psychological trauma (Impact of Event Scale). RESULTS: Over half (55.2%) of women accepted the offer of a transvaginal scan, according to hospital records. The majority of study participants who had transvaginal ultrasound reported finding the experience acceptable. Women experienced some anxiety before and during the scan and over a third experienced some (usually mild) pain during the procedure. Twelve women (1.6%) reported clinically significant levels of psychological trauma in relation to the scan. CONCLUSIONS: Antenatal transvaginal ultrasound for assessing the risk of preterm delivery is an acceptable procedure for the majority of women. A significant minority decline the scan. The procedure has some psychological sequelae for some women.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".