ArticlePloS one2024
Vietnamese health professionals' views on the status of the fetus and maternal and fetal health interests: A regional, cross-sectional study from the Hanoi area.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Obstetric ultrasound is an important tool in managing pregnancies and its use is increasing globally. However, the status of the pregnant woman and the fetus may vary in terms of clinical management, views in the community and legislation. To investigate the views and experiences of Vietnamese health professionals on maternal and fetal health interests, priority setting and potential conflicts, we conducted a cross-sectional study using a structured questionnaire. Obstetricians/gynecologists, midwives and sonographers who manage pregnant women in maternity wards were invited to participate. We purposively chose public health facilities in the Hanoi region of Vietnam to obtain a representative sample. The final sample included 882 health professionals, of which 32.7% (n = 289) were obstetricians/gynecologists, 60.7% (n = 535) midwives and 6.6% (n = 58) sonographers. The majority of participants (60.3%) agreed that "The fetus is a person from the time of conception" and that maternal health interests should always be prioritised over fetal health interests in care provided (54.4%). 19.7% agreed that the fetus is never a patient, only the pregnant woman can be the patient, while 60.5% disagreed. Participants who performed ultrasounds were more likely to agree that fetal health interests are being given more weight in decision-making the further the gestation advances compared to those who did not perform ultrasounds (cOR 2.47, CI 1.27-4.79: n = 811). A significant proportion of health professionals in Vietnam assign the fetus the status of being a person, where personhood gradually evolves during pregnancy. While the fetus is often considered a patient with its own health interests, a majority of participants did give priority to maternal health interests. Health professionals appear to favour increased legal protection of the fetus. Strengthening the legal status of the fetus might have adverse implications for maternal autonomy. Measures to restrict maternal autonomy might require close observation to ensure that maternal reproductive rights are protected.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.