Literature DB >> 15134675

Communicating risk in prenatal genetic testing.

Elena A Gates1.   

Abstract

Prenatal testing for Down syndrome and neural tube defects has become routine, and testing for other genetic conditions is becoming commonplace. Counseling about these tests involves a discussion of risk information, so pregnant women and their partners can use the information effectively when they make choices about testing. Discussing risk can be challenging, as many individuals, particularly those of lower literacy, have a poor understanding of the numerical concept of risk. Furthermore, whether risk is comprehended accurately or not, it is interpreted by patients in light of their existing knowledge and past experiences. Strategies available to optimize understanding of risk include communication of risk figures as frequencies rather than as probabilities or percentages and explicit discussion of a woman's preconceptions about her risk and about the condition being tested for.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15134675     DOI: 10.1016/j.jmwh.2004.02.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Midwifery Womens Health        ISSN: 1526-9523            Impact factor:   2.388


  10 in total

1.  Information related to prenatal genetic counseling: interpretation by adolescents, effects on risk perception and ethical implications.

Authors:  Philippe A Melas; Susanne Georgsson Öhman; Niklas Juth; The-Hung Bui
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2011-10-25       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 2.  How risk is perceived, constructed and interpreted by clients in clinical genetics, and the effects on decision making: systematic review.

Authors:  Stephanie Sivell; Glyn Elwyn; Clara L Gaff; Angus J Clarke; Rachel Iredale; Chris Shaw; Joanna Dundon; Hazel Thornton; Adrian Edwards
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-10-30       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Birthing ethics: what mothers, families, childbirth educators, nurses, and physicians should know about the ethics of childbirth.

Authors:  Jennifer M Torres; Raymond G De Vries
Journal:  J Perinat Educ       Date:  2009

4.  "Testing times, challenging choices": an Australian study of prenatal genetic counseling.

Authors:  Jan M Hodgson; Lynn H Gillam; Margaret A Sahhar; Sylvia A Metcalfe
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2009-10-02       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Referencing BRCA in hereditary cancer risk discussions: In search of an anchor in a sea of uncertainty.

Authors:  Margaret Waltz; Anya E R Prince; Julianne M O'Daniel; Ann Katherine M Foreman; Bradford C Powell; Jonathan S Berg
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2020-01-22       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Patient Perception of Negative Noninvasive Prenatal Testing Results.

Authors:  A Theresa Wittman; S Shahrukh Hashmi; Hector Mendez-Figueroa; Salma Nassef; Blair Stevens; Claire N Singletary
Journal:  AJP Rep       Date:  2016-10

7.  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

8.  Decision-making for prenatal genetic screening: how will pregnant women navigate a growing number of aneuploidy and carrier screening options?

Authors:  Ruth M Farrell; Madelyn Pierce; Christina Collart; Meng Yao; Marissa Coleridge; Edward K Chien; Susannah S Rose; Mary Lintel; Uma Perni; Brownsyne Tucker Edmonds
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2021-12-04       Impact factor: 3.007

9.  It's More Than a Blood Test: Patients' Perspectives on Noninvasive Prenatal Testing.

Authors:  Ruth M Farrell; Mary Beth Mercer; Patricia K Agatisa; Marissa B Smith; Elliot Philipson
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2014-06-19       Impact factor: 4.241

10.  The Effectiveness of Narrative Versus Didactic Information Formats on Pregnant Women's Knowledge, Risk Perception, Self-Efficacy, and Information Seeking Related to Climate Change Health Risks.

Authors:  Adebanke L Adebayo; Rochelle Davidson Mhonde; Nathaniel DeNicola; Edward Maibach
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-09-23       Impact factor: 3.390

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.