Cited by 27Prenatal Screening and DiagnosticsMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsGlobal Maternal and Child Health

Refugee and Migrant Women's Views of Antenatal Ultrasound on the Thai Burmese Border: A Mixed Methods Study

Open access
Rijken, Marcus J., Gilder, Mary Ellen, Thwin, May Myo, Ladda Kajeechewa, Honey Moon, Wiladphaingern, Jacher, Lwin, Khin Maung, Jones, Caroline, Nosten, François +1 more·2012·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Antenatal ultrasound suits developing countries by virtue of its versatility, relatively low cost and safety, but little is known about women's or local provider's perspectives of this upcoming technology in such settings. This study was undertaken to better understand how routine obstetric ultrasound is experienced in a displaced Burmese population and identify barriers to its acceptance by local patients and providers. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Qualitative (30 observations, 19 interviews, seven focus group discussions) and quantitative methods (questionnaire survey with 644 pregnant women) were used to provide a comprehensive understanding along four major themes: safety, emotions, information and communication, and unintended consequences of antenatal ultrasound in refugee and migrant clinics on the Thai Burmese border. One of the main concerns expressed by women was the danger of childbirth which they mainly attributed to fetal malposition. Both providers and patients recognized ultrasound as a technology improving the safety of pregnancy and delivery. A minority of patients experienced transitory shyness or anxiety before the ultrasound, but reported that these feelings could be ameliorated with improved patient information and staff communication. Unintended consequences of overuse and gender selective abortions in this population were not common. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The results of this study are being used to improve local practice and allow development of explanatory materials for this population with low literacy. We strongly encourage facilities introducing new technology in resource poor settings to assess acceptability through similar inquiry.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0034018

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [6]Harris RD Marks WM 2009 Compact ultrasound for improving maternal and perinatal care in low-resource settings: review of the potential benefits, implementation challenges, and public health issues. J Ultrasound Med 28 1067 1076 19643790
  2. [17]Molander E Alehagen S Bertero CM 2010 Routine ultrasound examination during pregnancy: a world of possibilities. Midwifery 26 18 26 18571818

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rijken, M. J., Gilder, M. E., Thwin, M. M., Ladda Kajeechewa, H. M., Wiladphaingern, J., Lwin, K. M., Jones, C., Nosten, F., & McGready, R.
Affiliations
  • Shoklo Malaria Research Unit (TH)
  • John Radcliffe Hospital (GB)
  • Mahidol University (TH)
Corresponding author
Rijken, Marcus J.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2012-04-13
Volume
7
Issue
4
Pages
e34018
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2035987857
Cited by
27
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3
FWCI
1.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Greater South Information System
Funders
  • Vanderbilt University (R24 TW007988)
  • Wellcome Trust (089275)
  • Mahidol University
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
  • Fogarty International Center (R24TW007988)
  • Office of Women's Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Global Maternal and Child Health
Keywords
prenatal ultrasound, refugee women, migrant women, Thai-Myanmar border, technology acceptance, pregnant women's perspectives, provider perspectives, fetal malpresentation, childbirth safety, patient information and communication, displaced persons
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Myanmar, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Pregnancy, Surveys and Questionnaires, Transients and Migrants, Ultrasonography, Prenatal, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review