↓ Skip to main content

Attitudes to prenatal screening among Norwegian citizens: liberality, ambivalence and sensitivity

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Attitudes to prenatal screening among Norwegian citizens: liberality, ambivalence and sensitivity
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12910-018-0319-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Morten Magelssen, Berge Solberg, Magne Supphellen, Guttorm Haugen

Abstract

Norway's liberal abortion law allows for abortion on social indications, yet access to screening for fetal abnormalities is restricted. Norwegian regulation of, and public discourse about prenatal screening and diagnosis has been exceptional. In this study, we wanted to investigate whether the exceptional regulation is mirrored in public attitudes. An electronic questionnaire with 11 propositions about prenatal screening and diagnosis was completed by 1617 Norwegian adults (response rate 8.5%). A majority of respondents supports increased access to prenatal screening with ultrasound (60%) and/or full genome sequencing of fetal DNA (55%) available for all pregnant women. Significant minorities indicate, however, that a public offer of prenatal screening for all pregnant women would signal that people with Down syndrome are unwanted (46%) or could be criticized for contributing to a 'sorting society' (48%). Results indicate deeper ambivalences and a cultural sensitivity to the ethical challenges of prenatal screening and subsequent abortions. The specific diagnosis of Down syndrome and the fear of becoming a 'sorting society' which sorts human life due to diagnoses, appear to play prominent roles in citizen deliberations. The low response rate means that a non-response bias cannot be excluded, yet reasons why results are still likely to be of value are discussed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 27%
Other 3 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 7%
Researcher 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 3 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 4 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 7%
Psychology 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 3 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 September 2018.
All research outputs
#1,986,404
of 13,549,479 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#207
of 581 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,813
of 265,934 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,549,479 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 581 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,934 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them