Literature DB >> 12370321

Informed choice to undergo prenatal screening: a comparison of two hospitals conducting testing either as part of a routine visit or requiring a separate visit.

E Dormandy1, R Hooper, S Michie, T M Marteau.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It is not known which of two common methods of conducting prenatal screening best facilitate women making informed choices.
OBJECTIVE: To describe rates of informed choice in two hospitals: one where screening for Down's syndrome was conducted at a routine visit; the other where screening was conducted as part of a separate visit.
DESIGN: Prospective descriptive study.
SETTING: Two hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: 1499 pregnant women offered screening for Down's syndrome. OUTCOME MEASURE: A multidimensional measure of informed choice derived from measures of (a) consistency between attitudes towards undergoing the test and uptake and (b) knowledge about the screening test.
RESULTS: The proportion of women making an informed choice to accept the test was higher at the routine visit hospital than at the separate visit hospital (41% v 21%, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of the difference 16% to 25%). The proportions of women making an informed choice to decline the test were similar at the two hospitals (23% at both, 95% CI of the difference -5% to 4%). These results reflect the finding that women with negative attitudes were equally likely to decline the test at each of the two hospitals, whereas women with positive attitudes were more likely to accept the test at the routine visit hospital than at the separate visit hospital. This finding held after adjusting for parity, socioeconomic status, age, and ethnicity. At both hospitals, women with good knowledge were slightly more likely to undergo the test than were women with poor knowledge. This difference disappeared after a similar adjustment.
CONCLUSION: Screening conducted as part of a routine visit may be associated with higher levels of informed choice than screening conducted at a separate visit. This finding constitutes a hypothesis for experimental investigation.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Genetics and Reproduction

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12370321     DOI: 10.1136/jms.9.3.109

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Screen        ISSN: 0969-1413            Impact factor:   2.136


  13 in total

1.  Haemoglobinopathy screening: an end to institutional racism?

Authors:  Theresa Marteau; Elizabeth Dormandy
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  Awareness and attitudes regarding prenatal testing among Texas women of childbearing age.

Authors:  Amy P Case; Tunu A Ramadhani; Mark A Canfield; Catherine A Wicklund
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-08-03       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 3.  Measuring informed choice in population-based reproductive genetic screening: a systematic review.

Authors:  Alice Grace Ames; Sylvia Ann Metcalfe; Alison Dalton Archibald; Rony Emily Duncan; Jon Emery
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-05-21       Impact factor: 4.246

4.  Impact on informed choice of offering antenatal sickle cell and thalassaemia screening in primary care: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Katrina Brown; Elizabeth Dormandy; Erin Reid; Martin Gulliford; Theresa Marteau
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 2.136

5.  PSA testing for prostate cancer: an online survey of the views and reported practice of General Practitioners in the UK.

Authors:  Jo Brett; Eila Watson; Paul Hewitson; Colleen Bukach; Adrian Edwards; Glyn Elwyn; Joan Austoker
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2005-06-09       Impact factor: 2.497

6.  A Framework for Describing the Influence of Service Organisation and Delivery on Participation in Fetal Anomaly Screening in England.

Authors:  Hyacinth O Ukuhor; Janet Hirst; S José Closs; William J Montelpare
Journal:  J Pregnancy       Date:  2017-03-22

7.  Using psychological theory and qualitative methods to develop a new evidence-based website about acupuncture for back pain.

Authors:  Felicity L Bishop; Maddy Greville-Harris; Jennifer Bostock; Amy Din; Cynthia A Graham; George Lewith; Christina Liossi; Tim O'Riordan; Rachel Ryves; Peter White; Lucy Yardley
Journal:  Eur J Integr Med       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 1.314

Review 8.  Social and behavioral research in genomic sequencing: approaches from the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium Outcomes and Measures Working Group.

Authors:  Stacy W Gray; Yolanda Martins; Lindsay Z Feuerman; Barbara A Bernhardt; Barbara B Biesecker; Kurt D Christensen; Steven Joffe; Christine Rini; David Veenstra; Amy L McGuire
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2014-03-13       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Informing Patients About Placebo Effects: Using Evidence, Theory, and Qualitative Methods to Develop a New Website.

Authors:  Maddy Greville-Harris; Jennifer Bostock; Amy Din; Cynthia A Graham; George Lewith; Christina Liossi; Tim O'Riordan; Peter White; Lucy Yardley; Felicity L Bishop
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2016-06-10

10.  Reasons for accepting or declining Down syndrome screening in Dutch prospective mothers within the context of national policy and healthcare system characteristics: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Neeltje M T H Crombag; Hennie Boeije; Rita Iedema-Kuiper; Peter C J I Schielen; Gerard H A Visser; Jozien M Bensing
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2016-05-26       Impact factor: 3.007

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.