Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Journal of Child Science 2021; 11(01): e222-e226
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1733872
Original Article

Association of Sociodemographic, Obstetric, and Attitudinal Factors with Prenatal Ultrasound in Mashhad, Iran

Lida Jarahi
1   Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
,
Rahil Mahmoudi
2   Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences, Sabzevar, Iran
,
Mohsen Vazifedar Yazd
3   Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
,
Hamidreza Ghodsi
3   Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
,
Mohammad Ramezani
3   Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
,
Alireza Omranzadeh
3   Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Many antenatal sonographies are out of indication and may be asked due to mothers' requests or other factors. However, these features are not fully understood. This study aimed to assess the association of sociodemographic, obstetric, and attitudinal factors that may affect the number of ultrasound scans. In a cross-sectional study in six hospitals affiliated with Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, 360 mothers who had a delivery or were expected to be near childbirth were enrolled in the study. The mean number of sonographies was compared between different study variables by using Mann–Whitney, Kruskal–Wallis, and Pearson's Chi-squared tests. Moreover, the Spearman Rho test was used to assess the correlation between different variables and the number of sonographies. Totally, 300 cases remained in the study. The mean age of the mothers was 25.95 ± 4.77 years, and the average number of ultrasonographies was 3.50 ± 1.35. In case of sociodemographic features, the level of education (r = 0.23; p < 0.001) and several recent miscarriages (r = 0.140; p = 0.01) were correlated with number of sonographies. However, there was no association between maternal age and marriage age with several sonographies (p > 0.05). Furthermore, mothers with higher family income (p = 0.010), those with medical insurance (p = 0.010), those who had male fetuses (p = 0.020), those who were clerk or student (p = 0.003), and those who were not aware of the sonography risks (p = 0.020) had more requests for sonography. It seems that financial factors and awareness of sonography risks play an essential role in sonography requests by mothers.

Keywords

ultrasonography - prenatal care - obstetrics - attitude - demography - Iran


Publication History

Article published online:
27 August 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Whitworth M, Bricker L, Mullan C. Ultrasound for fetal assessment in early pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; (07) CD007058
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bakst S, Romano-Zelekha O, Ostrovsky J, Shohat T. Determinants associated with making prenatal screening decisions in a national study. J Obstet Gynaecol 2019; 39 (01) 41-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Farahmand S, Abdolhoseini A, Aliniagerdroudbari E, Babaniamansour S, Baratloo A, Bagheri-Hariri S. Point-of-care ultrasound modalities in terms of diagnosing acute decompensated heart failure in emergency department; a diagnostic accuracy study. Internal Emerg Med 2020; 15 (03) 491-499
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 van den Berg M, Timmermans DR, Ten Kate LP, van Vugt JM, van der Wal G. Are pregnant women making informed choices about prenatal screening?. Genet Med 2005; 7 (05) 332-338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Agbata AT, Ukaegbe CI, Lawani LO, Ekwedigwe KC, Ajah LO. Women's views on routine antenatal ultrasound scan in a low resource nigerian setting. J Clin Diagn Res 2018;12(06):
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Ghodsi A, Bijari M, Alamdaran SA. et al. Chest computed tomography findings of COVID-19 in children younger than 1 year: a systematic review. World J Ped 2021; 1-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Gudex C, Nielsen BL, Madsen M. Why women want prenatal ultrasound in normal pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 27 (02) 145-150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hitimana R, Lindholm L, Krantz G, Nzayirambaho M, Pulkki-Brännström A-M. Systematic review of cost and cost-effectiveness of routine ultrasound during pregnancy. Accessed at: http://umu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1261325&dswid=6450 2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ikeako L, Ezegwui H, Onwudiwe E, Enwereji J. Attitude of expectant mothers on the use of ultrasound in pregnancy in a tertiary institution in South East of Nigeria. Ann Med Health Sci Res 2014; 4 (06) 949-953
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Buyukbayrak EE, Soysal S, Anik Ilhan G, Yavuzer O. What do expectant parents know about antenatal ultrasound screening?. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2020; 33 (11) 1811-1817
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Garcia J, Bricker L, Henderson J. et al. Women's views of pregnancy ultrasound: a systematic review. Birth 2002; 29 (04) 225-250
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Henderson J, Redshaw M. Change over time in women's views and experiences of maternity care in England, 1995-2014: a comparison using survey data. Midwifery 2017; 44: 35-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Simó S, Zúñiga L, Izquierdo MT, Rodrigo MF. Effects of ultrasound on anxiety and psychosocial adaptation to pregnancy. Arch Women Ment Health 2019; 22 (04) 511-518
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Enakpene CA, Morhason-Bello IO, Marinho AO. et al. Clients' reasons for prenatal ultrasonography in Ibadan, South West of Nigeria. BMC Womens Health 2009; 9 (01) 12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Huang K, Tao F, Raven J, Liu L, Wu X, Tang S. Utilization of antenatal ultrasound scan and implications for caesarean section: a cross-sectional study in rural Eastern China. BMC Health Serv Res 2012; 12 (01) 93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Torloni MR, Vedmedovska N, Merialdi M. et al; ISUOG-WHO Fetal Growth Study Group. Safety of ultrasonography in pregnancy: WHO systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 33 (05) 599-608
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Newnham JP, Doherty DA, Kendall GE, Zubrick SR, Landau LL, Stanley FJ. Effects of repeated prenatal ultrasound examinations on childhood outcome up to 8 years of age: follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004; 364 (9450): 2038-2044
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Drukker L, Droste R, Chatelain P, Noble JA, Papageorghiou AT. Safety indices of ultrasound: adherence to recommendations and awareness during routine obstetric ultrasound scanning. Ultraschall Med 2020; 41 (02) 138-145
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Davidson C, Mastrobattista J, Ramirez M, Monga M. Utilization of obstetrical ultrasound in a referral population. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2004; 191 (06) S180
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Ugwu A, Osungbade E, Erondu F. Maternal perspectives of prenatal sonogram in a north-eastern population in Nigeria. Libyan J Med 2009; 4 (04) 140-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar