Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
individual gives birth to that number of babies, one of them will be born
with, so I have tried to think more like that, or if you try to think of
219 things in front of you, you can count paving-stones in the street or
something and try to understand. I guess that image of the 219 is easier
to understand than looking at a fi gure on a piece of paper. And this risk
is so small, it is so small that you could hardly, if you think about the
risk of a miscarriage before the twelfth week, that's 15 per cent, so that
risk is incredibly higher than this risk, and if you have gotten past that
risk, then you feel there shouldn't be any great problems to get past
this second risk which is much smaller. But as it is called high risk, it is
diffi cult to think, well [sigh].
As we see here, Beatrice tries to think of an image that will make 219
more visual and thus more concrete, something that will be more easy to
understand than a fi gure on a piece of paper. She also compares her risk
fi gure with another risk that is known to her, the risk of a miscarriage in early
pregnancy. This other risk is expressed in per cent 'that's 15 per cent' and
she draws the conclusion that this is a much higher risk than the ultrasound
risk score of 1:219. She continues to relate these two risk fi gures to each
other by saying that once you have gotten past the fi rst higher one, there
shouldn't be any great problems getting past the second and smaller one.
Also in the following example we see how the woman tries to compare her
risk score with other risk estimates in pregnancy:
METTE:
(29, risk score 1:71) I had nothing to relate these fi gures to, and
then I thought it was very much. I also asked about the invasive test,
how big is the risk for a miscarriage. That risk is somewhere between
0.5 per cent and 1 per cent. Then we can say 1 to 150, and then this
feels like a big risk too. But if you imagine that you line up 71 women
and just one, then it feels a bit less, but I, those fi gures became very big,
to me it was a very big risk.
What we see here, is that the women in their accounts vividly describe
their diffi culties in understanding the meaning of the risk score, and the
various methods they try to use. They do try to understand better by
contextualizing, comparing and visualizing the risk fi gure. In doing this, they
are looking for something to hold on to. They draw on notions of normality
to create a frame of reference. They refl ect on what can be expected and
what is normal. 'What is normal risk for me or for a woman my age?' They
also position themselves within or outside normality, as belonging to or not
belonging to a high risk group. Also, importantly, the women compare their
risk fi gures with other risks, or rather implications of risks, that they see as
trivial (such as missing a plane).
The women under 35 did not expect a risk of chromosomal abnormality
from the ultrasound scan, they were 'taken by surprise', which can be
