W A Grobman1, S L Dooley, E E Welshman, E Pergament, E A Calhoun. 1. Sections of Maternal-Fetal Medicine and Reproductive Genetics, Northwestern University Medical School Institute for Social Research and Health Policy Studies, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA. w-grobman@northwestern.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the perceptions of miscarriage and birth of a child with Down syndrome among pregnant women and to evaluate the implications of these preferences for the traditional 35-year old maternal age risk boundary. METHODS: An interviewer-administered survey was given to 186 pregnant women receiving antepartum care at a university hospital. Preferences, as reflected by utilities, for birth of a child with Down syndrome and pregnancy miscarriage, stratified by patient characteristics, were assessed. RESULTS: The utility for the birth of a child with Down syndrome decreased (p < 0.001) as clinical severity increased from mild (0.78) to severe (0.65). Miscarriage of a pregnancy had a mean utility of 0.76 +/- 0.31. Women who desired prenatal diagnosis had a utility value for miscarriage (0.79 +/- 0.28) that was significantly higher than for the birth of a child with Down syndrome of unknown severity (0.73 +/- 0.27). In multivariable logistic regression, desire for prenatal diagnosis was the only factor associated with a preference of miscarriage over birth of an affected child (odds ratio 2.26, 95% confidence interval 1.03, 4.96). CONCLUSION: Women who desire prenatal diagnosis do not perceive the birth of a child with Down syndrome and a pregnancy miscarriage to be equivalent health states. This finding calls into question the rationale of the 35-year-old maternal age criterion and suggests that actual patient preferences should be better incorporated into the decision to offer definitive prenatal diagnosis. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the perceptions of miscarriage and birth of a child with Down syndrome among pregnant women and to evaluate the implications of these preferences for the traditional 35-year old maternal age risk boundary. METHODS: An interviewer-administered survey was given to 186 pregnant women receiving antepartum care at a university hospital. Preferences, as reflected by utilities, for birth of a child with Down syndrome and pregnancy miscarriage, stratified by patient characteristics, were assessed. RESULTS: The utility for the birth of a child with Down syndrome decreased (p < 0.001) as clinical severity increased from mild (0.78) to severe (0.65). Miscarriage of a pregnancy had a mean utility of 0.76 +/- 0.31. Women who desired prenatal diagnosis had a utility value for miscarriage (0.79 +/- 0.28) that was significantly higher than for the birth of a child with Down syndrome of unknown severity (0.73 +/- 0.27). In multivariable logistic regression, desire for prenatal diagnosis was the only factor associated with a preference of miscarriage over birth of an affected child (odds ratio 2.26, 95% confidence interval 1.03, 4.96). CONCLUSION:Women who desire prenatal diagnosis do not perceive the birth of a child with Down syndrome and a pregnancy miscarriage to be equivalent health states. This finding calls into question the rationale of the 35-year-old maternal age criterion and suggests that actual patient preferences should be better incorporated into the decision to offer definitive prenatal diagnosis. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Authors: Ronald J Wapner; Christa Lese Martin; Brynn Levy; Blake C Ballif; Christine M Eng; Julia M Zachary; Melissa Savage; Lawrence D Platt; Daniel Saltzman; William A Grobman; Susan Klugman; Thomas Scholl; Joe Leigh Simpson; Kimberly McCall; Vimla S Aggarwal; Brian Bunke; Odelia Nahum; Ankita Patel; Allen N Lamb; Elizabeth A Thom; Arthur L Beaudet; David H Ledbetter; Lisa G Shaffer; Laird Jackson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-12-06 Impact factor: 91.245
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
Authors: Miriam Kuppermann; Sherri Pena; Judith T Bishop; Sanae Nakagawa; Steven E Gregorich; Anita Sit; Juan Vargas; Aaron B Caughey; Susan Sykes; Lasha Pierce; Mary E Norton Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-09-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Brenda Niu; Vanessa R Lee; Yvonne W Cheng; Antonio E Frias; James M Nicholson; Aaron B Caughey Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-06-06 Impact factor: 8.661