1. Abortloven . [Abortion Act]. Oslo: Statens trykksakekspedisjon, 1978.
Google Scholar2. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists . The care of women requesting induced abortion evidence-based clinical guideline number 7. https://www.scribd.com/document/112056037/Clinical-Guideline-Number7-November2011 (2011).
Google Scholar3. Bjørge, L, Hermanrud, MS, Løkeland, M, et al. Provosert abort [Guidelines Induced abortion]. https://www.legeforeningen.no/foreningsledd/fagmed/norsk-gynekologisk-forening/veiledere/veileder-i-gynekologi/provosert-abort/ (2021, accessed 27 May 2021).
Google Scholar4. Ultralydportalen for gravide . Når kan en med ultralyd konstatere graviditet? http://ultraportalen.no/ultralyd-i-svangerskapet/ (2020).
Google Scholar5. Blaas, H-GK . Detection of structural abnormalities in the first trimester using ultrasound. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2014; 28: 341–353. DOI: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2013.11.004.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline6. Sosial- og helsedirektoratet . Veiledende retningslinjer for bruk av ultralyd i svangerskapet [Guidelines Ultrasound]. 2004.
Google Scholar7. Guttmacher Institute . Requirements for ultrasound. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/requirements-ultrasound (2020).
Google Scholar8. Kvande, L . Frå politikk til etikk-obstetrisk ultralyd i 1980 og 1990-åra [From politics to ethics-obstetric ultrasound in the 1980s and 1990s]. Tidsskr den Norske lægeforening 2008; 128: 2855–2859.
Google Scholar | Medline9. Beauchamp, T, Childress, J. Principles of biomedical ethics. 8th ed. ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.
Google Scholar10. Bamigboye, AA, Nikodem, VC, Santana, MA, et al. Should women view the ultrasound image before first-trimester termination of pregnancy? South Afr Med J 2002; 92: 430–432.
Google Scholar | Medline11. Wiebe, ER, Adams, L. Women’s perceptions about seeing the ultrasound picture before an abortion. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2009; 14: 97–102. DOI: 10.1080/13625180902745130.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI12. Graham, O, Ankrett, S, Killick, SR. Viewing ultrasound scan images prior to termination of pregnancy: Choice for women or conflict for ultrasonographers? J Obstet Gynaecol 2010; 30: 484–488. DOI: 10.3109/01443615.2010.484111.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline13. Simpson, JD, Brown, A. Viewing ultrasound images in the abortion clinic: clients’ and health care professionals’ opinions. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2019; 24: 130–133. DOI: 10.1080/13625187.2019.1588959.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline14. Beynon-Jones, SM . Re-visioning ultrasound through women’s accounts of pre-abortion care in England. Gend Soc 2015; 29: 694–715. DOI: 10.1177/0891243215590101.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI15. Cappiello, J, Merrell, J, Rentschler, D. A qualitative study of women’s decision to view or not view an ultrasound image before early medication abortion. Women’s Health Issues 2014; 24: e413-418. DOI: 10.1016/j.whi.2014.04.004.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline16. Gatter, M, Kimport, K, Foster, DG, et al. Relationship between ultrasound viewing and proceeding to abortion. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123: 81–87. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000053.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline17. Kimport, K, Upadhyay, UD, Foster, DG, et al. Patient viewing of the ultrasound image prior to abortion. Contraception 2013; 88: 666–670. DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2013.07.006.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI18. Upadhyay, UD, Kimport, K, Belusa, EKO, et al. Evaluating the impact of a mandatory pre-abortion ultrasound viewing law: a mixed methods study. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0178871. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178871.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline19. Kimport, K, Weitz, TA. Constructing the meaning of ultrasound viewing in abortion care. Sociol Health Illn 2015; 37: 856–869. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9566.12237.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline20. van Manen, M . Phenomenology of practice: meaning-giving methods in phenomenological research and writing. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, 2014.
Google Scholar21. Kjelsvik, M, Sekse, RJT, Moi, AL, et al. Women’s experiences when unsure about whether or not to have an abortion in the first trimester. Health Care for Women International 2018; 39: 784–807. DOI: 10.1080/07399332.2018.1465945.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline22. Kjelsvik, M, Sekse, RJT, Moi, AL, et al. Walking on a tightrope - Caring for ambivalent women considering abortions in the first trimester. J Clin Nurs 2018; 27: 4192–4202. 2018/07/11. DOI: 10.1111/jocn.14612.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline23. Cameron, ST, Glasier, A. Identifying women in need of further discussion about the decision to have an abortion and eventual outcome. Contraception 2013; 88: 128–132. DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.10.032.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline24. Foster, DG, Gould, H, Taylor, J, et al. Attitudes and decision making among women seeking abortions at one US clinic. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2012; 44: 117–124. DOI: 10.1363/4411712.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline25. Ralph, LJ, Foster, DG, Kimport, K, et al. Measuring decisional certainty among women seeking abortion. Contraception 2017; 95: 269–278. DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.09.008.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline26. Mainey, L, O’Mullan, C, Reid‐Searl, K, et al. The role of nurses and midwives in the provision of abortion care: a scoping review. J Clin Nurs 2020; 29: 1513–1526. DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15218.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline27. Endler, M, Cleeve, A, Sääv, I, et al. How task-sharing in abortion care became the norm in Sweden: a case study of historic and current determinants and events. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2020; 150: 34–42. DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.13003.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline28. WMA . World medical association declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/ (2013).
Google Scholar29. NVivo . In: Ltd. QIP, (ed.). 12 ed. 2018.
Google Scholar30. Bradbury-Jones, C, Sambrook, S, Irvine, F. The phenomenological focus group: an oxymoron? J Adv Nurs 2009; 65: 663–671. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04922.x.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI31. Lov om pasient- og brukerrettigheter [Patient and User Rights Act]. Department Ministry of Health and Care Services, 1999.
Google Scholar32. Forskrift om pasientjournal [Regulations on patient records]. Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet, 2019.
Google Scholar33. Wifstad, Å . Helsefagenes etikk, En innføring [Health ethics - an introduction]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 2013.
Google Scholar34. Aune, I, Moller, A. ‘I want a choice, but I don’t want to decide’--a qualitative study of pregnant women’s experiences regarding early ultrasound risk assessment for chromosomal anomalies. Midwifery 2012; 28: 14–23. DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2010.10.015.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline35. Lou, S, Carstensen, K, Petersen, OB, et al. Termination of pregnancy following a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome: a qualitative study of the decision-making process of pregnant couples. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2018; 97: 1228–1236. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13386.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline36. Nykanen, M, Vehvilainen-Julkunen, K, Klemetti, R. The expectations of antenatal screening and experiences of the first-trimester screening scan. Midwifery 2017; 47: 15–21. DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2017.02.004.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline37. Kimport, K, Preskill, F, Cockrill, K, et al. Women’s perspectives on ultrasound viewing in the abortion care context. Women’s Health Issues 2012; 22: e513–e517. DOI: 10.1016/j.whi.2012.09.001.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI