Literature DB >> 10451513

Preferences of women facing a prenatal diagnostic choice: long-term outcomes matter most.

M Kuppermann1, D Feeny, E Gates, S F Posner, B Blumberg, A E Washington.   

Abstract

Women aged 35 or older who wish to undergo prenatal diagnosis for chromosomal disorders are typically offered a choice between chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis. These two tests are performed at different times and impose differing miscarriage risks. In deciding which test to use, therefore, women need to consider both short-term consequences (e.g. timing of pregnancy loss, should it occur) and long-term consequences (e.g. whether a pregnancy loss is followed by a future birth). We examined how women seeking prenatal diagnostic services value the outcomes of testing. We conducted a cross-sectional study of 72 women seeking genetic counselling at the University of California at San Francisco or Kaiser San Francisco. We measured preferences for outcomes (utilities) of prenatal diagnosis using the standard gamble metric. We also assessed demographics and attitudes via questionnaire. We observed no differences in mean utilities assigned to first- versus second-trimester pregnancy losses with similar long-term sequelae. Utilities for losses followed by future birth, however, were significantly higher than utilities for losses without future birth (range 0.91 to 0.93 versus 0.84 to 0.86, p<0.05 for all comparisons). In addition, we observed substantial variation in utilities across women. Long-term outcomes matter most to these women. In presenting prenatal diagnostic options to their patients, clinicians should include discussion of outcomes such as the likelihood of future birth in the event of a pregnancy loss. Furthermore, the substantial variation in utilities we observed suggests that future prenatal testing policies should account for the preferences of the individual woman. Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10451513

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prenat Diagn        ISSN: 0197-3851            Impact factor:   3.050


  10 in total

1.  Screening for Down's syndrome: effects, safety, and cost effectiveness of first and second trimester strategies.

Authors:  R E Gilbert; C Augood; R Gupta; A E Ades; S Logan; M Sculpher; J H van Der Meulen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-08-25

2.  The psychological dimension of informed consent: dissonance processes in genetic testing.

Authors:  Sonja Grover
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Antenatal imaging: does the postnatal impact justify the effort?

Authors:  Laurent Garel
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2011-01-13

4.  Advances in medical technology and creation of disparities: the case of Down syndrome.

Authors:  Babak Khoshnood; Catherine De Vigan; Véronique Vodovar; Gérard Bréart; François Goffinet; Béatrice Blondel
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2006-10-31       Impact factor: 9.308

5.  Maternal age-based prenatal screening for chromosomal disorders: attitudes of women and health care providers toward changes.

Authors:  June C Carroll; Andrea Rideout; Brenda J Wilson; Judith Allanson; Sean Blaine; Mary Jane Esplen; Sandra Farrell; Gail E Graham; Jennifer MacKenzie; Wendy S Meschino; Preeti Prakash; Cheryl Shuman; Sherry Taylor; Stasey Tobin
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 3.275

6.  Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Intraoperative Cell Salvage for Obstetric Hemorrhage.

Authors:  Grace Lim; Vladyslav Melnyk; Francesca L Facco; Jonathan H Waters; Kenneth J Smith
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 7.892

7.  Introducing the non-invasive prenatal test for trisomy 21 in Belgium: a cost-consequences analysis.

Authors:  Mattias Neyt; Frank Hulstaert; Wilfried Gyselaers
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-11-07       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Cost-effectiveness of prenatal screening and diagnostic strategies for Down syndrome: A microsimulation modeling analysis.

Authors:  Wei Zhang; Tima Mohammadi; Julie Sou; Aslam H Anis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-12-04       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  The validity of the viscero-abdominal disproportion ratio for type of surgical closure in all fetuses with an omphalocele.

Authors:  Nina C J Peters; Annelieke Hijkoop; Rosan L Lechner; Alex J Eggink; Joost van Rosmalen; Dick Tibboel; René M H Wijnen; Hanneke IJsselstijn; Titia E Cohen-Overbeek
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2019-08-29       Impact factor: 3.050

10.  Comparison of different strategies in prenatal screening for Down's syndrome: cost effectiveness analysis of computer simulation.

Authors:  Jean Gekas; Geneviève Gagné; Emmanuel Bujold; Daniel Douillard; Jean-Claude Forest; Daniel Reinharz; François Rousseau
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-02-13
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.