BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025
Acceptable Nomenclature for Pregnancy Loss Care: A Cross-Sectional Observational Survey.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Malory Beth, Nuttall Louise, Heazell Alexander E P
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a pilot study evaluating the acceptability of pregnancy loss nomenclature among people with recent lived experience and make recommendations for UK mass communication.
DESIGN: Electronic internet-based questionnaire.
SETTING: UK.
POPULATION OR SAMPLE: Service users who accessed UK healthcare for > 1 experience(s) of pregnancy loss between 2021 and 2024 (n = 391).
METHODS: Descriptive and inferential statistics.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Acceptability ratings for pregnancy loss nomenclature used diagnostically in UK healthcare settings.
RESULTS: Much nomenclature currently in use in UK pregnancy loss care was rated 'unacceptable' by a majority of study participants. Spontaneous abortion, incompetent cervix, and cervical incompetence were among the terminology rated as 'unacceptable' by > 80.0% of the respondents rating terms for the process of loss. In contrast, pregnancy loss and ectopic pregnancy were rated 'acceptable' by > 80.0% of respondents. As nomenclature for pregnancy loss outcomes, products, contents of the womb/uterus, and tissue were rated 'unacceptable' by > 80.0% of respondents. Baby and 'their given name' were rated 'acceptable' by > 80.0% of respondents across all gestational age brackets. Some terminology elicited mixed acceptability ratings.
CONCLUSIONS: Some pregnancy loss nomenclature attracted consensus acceptability or unacceptability ratings for respondents. The data inform evidence-based recommended alternatives, which should be adopted for mass communications relating to pregnancy loss.
DESIGN: Electronic internet-based questionnaire.
SETTING: UK.
POPULATION OR SAMPLE: Service users who accessed UK healthcare for > 1 experience(s) of pregnancy loss between 2021 and 2024 (n = 391).
METHODS: Descriptive and inferential statistics.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Acceptability ratings for pregnancy loss nomenclature used diagnostically in UK healthcare settings.
RESULTS: Much nomenclature currently in use in UK pregnancy loss care was rated 'unacceptable' by a majority of study participants. Spontaneous abortion, incompetent cervix, and cervical incompetence were among the terminology rated as 'unacceptable' by > 80.0% of the respondents rating terms for the process of loss. In contrast, pregnancy loss and ectopic pregnancy were rated 'acceptable' by > 80.0% of respondents. As nomenclature for pregnancy loss outcomes, products, contents of the womb/uterus, and tissue were rated 'unacceptable' by > 80.0% of respondents. Baby and 'their given name' were rated 'acceptable' by > 80.0% of respondents across all gestational age brackets. Some terminology elicited mixed acceptability ratings.
CONCLUSIONS: Some pregnancy loss nomenclature attracted consensus acceptability or unacceptability ratings for respondents. The data inform evidence-based recommended alternatives, which should be adopted for mass communications relating to pregnancy loss.