The Cambridge Worry Scale (CWS) is an instrument including 16 items measuring women's major worries during pregnancy. The aim of the study was to test the scale, translated into Swedish, on pregnant women in Stockholm. We also wanted to explore whether these women were worried about any item not included in the scale. An additional aim was to study possible variation in women's worries related to gestational week. Two hundred women were recruited. The average age was 31 years and 56% were primiparas. Gestational age ranged from 8 to 42 weeks, with a median of 28 weeks. The reliability of the scale was satisfactory (Cronbach's alpha coefficient 0.81). The major worries were about the baby's health, giving birth and miscarriage. These items, all related to pregnancy outcomes, were followed by worries about financial matters. An additional concern not included in the scale was about the maternity services in Stockholm, i.e. that the hospital would be overbooked, the staff being too busy or the medical safety not being guaranteed. Few women worried about their relationship with their partner or if he would be present at birth. Some of the items showed a pattern with a period of less worry in midpregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Screening for fetal abnormality may increase women's anxiety as attention is directed at the possibility of something being wrong with the baby. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of ultrasound screening for Down's syndrome on women's anxiety in mid-pregnancy and 2 months after delivery. METHOD: Two thousand and twenty-six women were randomly allocated to an ultrasound examination at 12-14 gestational weeks (gws) including risk assessment for Down's syndrome or to a routine scan at 15-20 gws. Questionnaires including the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), the Cambridge Worry Scale (CWS), and the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) were filled in at baseline in early pregnancy, at 24 gws and 2 months after delivery. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found between the trial groups regarding women's worries about the health of the baby, general anxiety and depressive symptoms during pregnancy or 2 months after delivery. Women's worries about something being wrong with the baby in the early ultrasound group and routine group, respectively, decreased from baseline (39.1% versus 36.0%) to mid-pregnancy (29.2% versus 27.8%), and finally to 2 months after delivery (5.2% versus 6.6%). CONCLUSION: Fetal screening for Down's syndrome by an early ultrasound scan did not cause more anxiety or concerns about the health of the baby in mid-pregnancy or 2 months after birth than in women who had a routine scan.

BACKGROUND: Fetal screening for Down syndrome by an ultrasound examination, including measurement of fetal nuchal translucency, at 12 to14 weeks' gestation is presently being evaluated in a Swedish randomized controlled trial. Women at high risk were offered an amniocentesis to obtain a definite diagnosis. The aim of this study was to explore women's reactions and responses to information about being at high risk after the scan, with a special focus on reactions to a false positive test. METHOD: Interviews were conducted with 24 women within 1 week after the scan, in midpregnancy, and 2 months after the birth. The interviews were analyzed qualitatively. Down syndrome was confirmed in 4 women, who chose to terminate the pregnancy. The remaining 20 women had a false positive test. RESULTS: For the majority, the risk information caused strong reactions of anxiety and worries about the future. A typical way for women to cope was to "withhold" the pregnancy, to take a "timeout," and try to live as if they were not pregnant any longer. Some weeks later, when the women received normal results from the chromosome analysis, they resumed being pregnant. Six women ages more than 35 years who had a risk score lower than their age-related risk did not express similarly strong reactions. Two months after the birth of a healthy baby, most stated they would undergo the same procedure in a subsequent pregnancy. One woman still suffered from the experience when interviewed at 2 months after the birth, and another said she regretted participating in the fetal screening program. CONCLUSIONS: A false positive test of fetal screening for Down syndrome by ultrasound examination may cause strong reactions of anxiety and even rejection of the pregnancy. The prevalence of such reactions and possible long-term effects need further investigation.

OBJECTIVE: to explore how information about being at risk of carrying a fetus with Down's syndrome was understood, and whether the actual risk and the woman's perception of risk was associated with worry or depressive symptoms during and after pregnancy. DESIGN AND SETTING: observational study. The sample was drawn from the intervention group of a Swedish randomised controlled trial of ultrasound screening for Down's syndrome by nuchal translucency measurement. MEASUREMENTS: data were collected by three questionnaires. Questions were asked about recall of the risk score and perception of risk. The Cambridge Worry Scale and the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale measured worry and depressive symptoms, respectively, on all three occasions. FINDINGS: of the 796 women who provided data for this study, one in five was unaware that the risk score was noted in her case record. In total, 620 women stated that they had received a risk score, but only 64% of them recalled the figure exactly or approximately. The actual risk was associated with the perceived risk, but of the 31 women who perceived the risk to be high, only 14 were actually at high risk. A high-risk score was not associated with worry or depressive symptoms in mid-pregnancy, in contrast to a woman's own perception of being at high risk. Two months postpartum, no associations were found between maternal emotional well-being and actual or perceived risk. CONCLUSIONS: information about fetal risk is complicated and women's perception of risk does not always reflect the actual risk, at least not when presented as a numerical risk score. The possibility that the information may cause unnecessary emotional problems cannot be excluded. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: caregivers should ascertain that information about fetal risk is interpreted correctly by pregnant women.