Knowledge and acceptability of prenatal diagnosis among pregnant women attending antenatal clinic in a tertiary health institution in Sokoto, Nigeria

Yakubu Ahmed, Abubakar A. Panti, Amina G. Umar, Anas R. Funtua, Nafisa Abdullahi, Jamila A. Garba


Background: Technology and advances in research have made it possible for the fetus to become a patient whose illness can be investigated, diagnosed and treated in utero. The study was aimed at assessing the knowledge and acceptability of prenatal diagnosis among pregnant women.

Methods: This was a cross-sectional study carried out between December 2016 and March, 2017. Pregnant women attending antennal care clinic at the Usmanu Danfodiyo University Teaching Hospital, Sokoto (UDUTH) were recruited via convenient sampling method using semi-structured interviewer questionnaire.

Results: A total of 417 pregnant women were interviewed. The mean maternal age was 28.35±5 years with a range between 17 to 45 years. Up to 188 (69.10%) had at least secondary school level of education. There was an overall poor knowledge of prenatal diagnosis, as 406 (97.36%) had little to no idea. There was statistically significant association between knowledge and educational status at p value- 0.0001. Majority, 353 (87.8%) will accept prenatal diagnosis if offered. There was also statistically significant association between educational status and acceptability as well as knowledge of prenatal diagnosis at p value- 0.001 and 0.001 respectively. The noninvasive method, ultrasound was the most preferred by the majority, 332 (84.3%). Termination of pregnancy as an option of management in fetal abnormality was acceptable by up to 2/3 (63.1%) of the respondents.

Conclusions: The knowledge of prenatal diagnosis among the respondents was generally poor. The identifiable factor that determined knowledge and acceptability of prenatal diagnosis was level of education.


Acceptability, Knowledge, Management option, Prenatal diagnosis, Termination of pregnancy

Full Text:



Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Hoffman BF, Spong YC, Dashe JS, et al. eds. Prenatal Diagnosis. In: Williams Obstetrics. 24th edn. New York; McGraw-Hill: 2014:283-297.

Adesina OAA, Oladapo OO, Adeniwu OF. The knowledge base and acceptability of prenatal diagnosis by pregnant women in Ibadan. Afr J Reprod Health. 2014;18(1):127-32.

Kwawukume EY, Arhin RA, Opoka BK. The Unborn Patient. In: Ekele BA, Danso KA, Emuveyan, eds. Comprehensive Obstetrics in the Tropics. 2nd edn. Accra Ghana: Assemblies of God literature center ltd.; 2015:34-40.

Rowan WC. Fetal medicine in clinical practice. In: Edmonds DK, ed. Dewhurst Textbook of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 7th edition. Massachusetts, United States of America: Blackwell publishing; 2007:132-143.

Konar H, ed. DC Dutta’s Textbook of Obstetrics, including perinatology and contraception. 7th edn. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers medical Publishers Ltd; 2013:469-497.

NICE Clinical Guideline. Antenatal care: routine care for the healthy pregnant woman. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Family Database (Chart SF2.3. A). 2009.

Shobha HM, Roberts JS. Assessment of at-risk pregnancy. In: Decherney AH, Nathan N, Neri L, Roman AS, eds. Current diagnosis and treatment: OBSTETRICS and gynecology. 11th edn. New York: McGraw Hill; 2013:223-233.

Sarah V. Prenatal Diagnosis. In: Philip NB, Kenny LC, eds. Obstetrics by Ten Teachers. 19th edn. United Kingdom: Hodder and Stoughton; 2011:75-79.

Fadare JO. Some ethical issues in the prenatal diagnosis of sickle cell anaemia. Ann Ibadan Postgrad Med. 2009;7(2):26-8.

Rahaman HAS, Elhad RA, Gamal AM, Albadry A. Prenatal diagnosis in low resource setting: is it acceptable? J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2012;62(5):515-9.

Karagkiouzis T, Sifakis S, Makrithanasis P, Dessypris N, Petridou ET, Kitsiou-Tzeli S, et al. Awareness of prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy among pregnant women in Greece. In Vivo. 2015;29(1):155-60.

Bricker L, Garcia J, Henderson J, Mugford M, Neilson J, Roberts T, et al. Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: a systematic review of the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and women's views. Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews. 2000.

Ambroise N, Alfred KN, Dora M, Jeanne N, Caryl Z. Acceptability of prenatal diagnosis by sample of parents of sickle cell anaemia patient in Cameroon (Sub-Saharan African). J Genet Couns. 2011;20:476-85.

Arif MO, Fatmi Z, Pardeep B, Ali T, Iqbal H, Bangash HK, et al. Attitudes and perceptions about prenatal diagnosis and induced abortion among adults of Pakistani population. Prenat Diagn. 2008;28(12):1149-55.

Kagu MB, Abja UA, Ahmed SG. Awareness and acceptability of prenatal diagnosis of sickle cell anaemia among health professionals and students in North Eastern Nigeria. Niger J Med. 2004;13(1):48-51.

Ajah OL, Nwali SA, Amah CC, Nwankwo TO, Lawani LO, Ozumba BC. Attitude of reproductive health care providers to prenatal diagnosis in a low resource Nigerian setting. J Diag Res. 2017;11(2):4-7.

Panel Code (Northern States) Federal Provision Act, Chapter 345 of the laws of the Federation of Nigeria (Revised ed. 1990), Articles 232-236. Nigeria’s Abortion Provisions. Center for Reproductive Rights. Available from: world-abortion-laws/nigerias-abortion-provisions. Accessed on 2 October 2017.