Literature DB >> 12478632

Preference assessment of prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome: is 35 years a rational cutoff?

W A Grobman1, S L Dooley, E E Welshman, E Pergament, E A Calhoun.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12478632     DOI: 10.1002/pd.494

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


  6 in total

1.  Genetic counseling for prenatal testing: where is the discussion about disability?

Authors:  Ellyn Farrelly; Mildred K Cho; Lori Erby; Debra Roter; Anabel Stenzel; Kelly Ormond
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-08-17       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Methadone, Buprenorphine, or Detoxification for Management of Perinatal Opioid Use Disorder: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Authors:  Ashish Premkumar; William A Grobman; Mishka Terplan; Emily S Miller
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 7.661

3.  Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis.

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

4.  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

5.  Effect of enhanced information, values clarification, and removal of financial barriers on use of prenatal genetic testing: a randomized clinical trial.

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

6.  What is the optimal gestational age for women with gestational diabetes type A1 to deliver?

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

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.