Literature DB >> 15210259

Psychological responses to prenatal NTS counseling and the uptake of invasive testing in women of advanced maternal age.

Amy S Kaiser1, Lorraine E Ferris, Randy Katz, Anne Pastuszak, Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas, Jo-Ann Johnson, Brian F Shaw.   

Abstract

This study examines women's psychological responses to prenatal group genetic counseling, and to subsequent individualized risk counseling. All women (N=123) aged 35 and older underwent nuchal translucency screening (NTS), a prenatal ultrasound screening test. After group counseling, decisional conflict decreased significantly among those reporting at baseline having made a decision about invasive testing (t(222)=2.0, P=0.014) and for those who were uncertain (t(222)=5.74, P <0.0005). After receiving NT-adjusted risks, decisional conflict decreased further for those uncertain about testing at baseline (t(222)=4.64, P <0.0005). There was no change in risk perception and anxiety after group counseling. After NT-adjusted risks were communicated, risk perception decreased significantly (t(230)=5.02, P <0.0005), as did anxiety (t(115)=7.91, P <0.005). Despite reassuring NTS results, the uptake rate for prenatal invasive testing was 78.4%. Risk perception, anxiety, and decisional conflict decreased after individual counseling for reassuring NTS results, but the uptake of invasive testing remained high.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15210259     DOI: 10.1016/S0738-3991(03)00190-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Patient Educ Couns        ISSN: 0738-3991


  6 in total

1.  Invasive prenatal testing decisions in pregnancy after infertility.

Authors:  Colleen Caleshu; Shoshana Shiloh; Cristofer Price; Julie Sapp; Barbara Biesecker
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.050

2.  Impacts of variants of uncertain significance on parental perceptions of children after prenatal chromosome microarray testing.

Authors:  Preeya Desai; Hannah Haber; Jessica Bulafka; Amita Russell; Rebecca Clifton; Julia Zachary; Seonjoo Lee; Tianshu Feng; Ronald Wapner; Catherine Monk; Wendy K Chung
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2018-07-24       Impact factor: 3.050

3.  Should pretest genetic counselling be required for patients pursuing genomic sequencing? Results from a survey of participants in a large genomic implementation study.

Authors:  Joel E Pacyna; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Sarah M Jenkins; Erica J Sutton; Caroline Horrow; Iftikhar J Kullo; Richard R Sharp
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2018-12-22       Impact factor: 6.318

4.  The effect of education on anxiety of pregnant mothers before amniocentesis.

Authors:  Shahnaz Mojahed; Razie Sadat Tabatabaei; Fariba Reihani; Ali Dehghani; Faride Khavari
Journal:  J Educ Health Promot       Date:  2021-02-27

5.  A comparison of face to face and group education on informed choice and decisional conflict of pregnant women about screening tests of fetal abnormalities.

Authors:  Masoumeh Kordi; Sahar Riyazi; Marziyeh Lotfalizade; Mohammad Taghi Shakeri; Hoseyn Jafari Suny
Journal:  J Educ Health Promot       Date:  2018-01-10

Review 6.  A systematic review of the impact of genetic counseling on risk perception accuracy.

Authors:  Chris M R Smerecnik; Ilse Mesters; Eline Verweij; Nanne K de Vries; Hein de Vries
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2009-03-17       Impact factor: 2.537

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.