{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017528483786152498, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007887817703768623, 'mean_word_length': 5.601156069364162, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Routine antenatal screening: not a case of informed choice

Abstract: Traditional epidemiological criteria are inadequate for comprehensively evaluating screening activities to identify best practice. In 1995, a study of women in the postnatal period at a major metropolitan teaching hospital in Victoria was conducted to assess, through their perspectives, the role of other factors of significance for the evaluation of routine antenatal screening. In particular, the role of informed choice was examined. The study involved a survey of 376 women and 21 semistructured interviews. The study found that, with an ‘opt—out’ or routine system of screening, high rates of use were achieved at the expense of informed choice for some participants. In addition, disturbing differences in information delivery and information perception were found between public and private patients. The need for new criteria to identify what constitutes best practice in the delivery of antenatal screening programs is discussed. These criteria should incorporate consideration of broader social and ethical implications for women receiving antenatal screening.