Termination of pregnancy for fetal anomaly: a systematic review of the healthcare experiences and needs of parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Improved technology and advances in clinical testing have resulted in increased detection rates of congenital anomalies during pregnancy, resulting in more parents being confronted with the possibility of terminating a pregnancy for this reason. There is a large body of research on the psychological experience and impact of terminating a pregnancy for fetal anomaly. However, there remains a lack of evidence on the holistic healthcare experience of parents in this situation. To develop a comprehensive understanding of the healthcare experiences and needs of parents, this systematic review sought to summarise and appraise the literature on parents' experiences following a termination of pregnancy for fetal anomaly. REVIEW QUESTION: What are the healthcare experiences and needs of parents who undergo a termination of pregnancy following an antenatal diagnosis of a fetal anomaly? METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken with searches completed across six multi-disciplinary electronic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane). Eligible articles were qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods studies, published between January 2010 and August 2021, reporting the results of primary data on the healthcare experiences or healthcare needs in relation to termination of pregnancy for fetal anomaly for either, or both parents. Findings were synthesised using Thematic Analysis. RESULTS: A total of 30 articles were selected for inclusion in this review of which 24 were qualitative, five quantitative and one mixed-methods. Five overarching themes emerged from the synthesis of findings: (1) Contextual impact on access to and perception of care, (2) Organisation of care, (3) Information to inform decision making, (4) Compassionate care, and (5) Partner experience. CONCLUSION: Compassionate healthcare professionals who provide non-judgemental and sensitive care can impact positively on parents' satisfaction with the care they receive. A well organised and co-ordinated healthcare system is needed to provide an effective and high-quality service. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020175970 .
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 | 0.010 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".