Literature DB >> 15229840

How do women of diverse backgrounds value prenatal testing outcomes?

Miriam Kuppermann1, Robert F Nease, Elena Gates, Lee A Learman, Bruce Blumberg, Virginia Gildengorin, A Eugene Washington.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To describe women's preferences for prenatal testing outcomes and to explore their association with sociodemographic characteristics and attitudes.
METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 584 racially/ethnically and socioeconomically diverse pregnant women aged 16 to 47 years recruited from 23 San Francisco Bay Area practices. We assessed preferences for 12 potential prenatal testing outcomes using the time trade-off metric for all outcomes and the standard gamble metric for two outcomes. Preferences were calculated on a scale of 0 (death) to 1 (perfect health). Participants also completed a sociodemographic and attitude survey.
RESULTS: Highest preference scores were assigned to outcomes resulting in the birth of a chromosomally normal infant (mean = 0.91-0.93; median = 0.99-1.00). Lower scores were obtained for outcomes involving pregnancy loss (mean = 0.69-0.87; median = 0.76-0.92), which were correlated with attitudes regarding miscarriage, pregnancy termination, and Down syndrome. The lowest scores were assigned to Down syndrome-affected births (mean = 0.67-0.69; median = 0.73-0.75), which also were correlated with attitudes toward Down syndrome. We did not find a statistically significant relationship between participants' preference scores and age.
CONCLUSION: Preferences for prenatal testing outcomes vary according to the pregnant women's underlying attitudes about pregnancy loss and Down syndrome, and not according to her age. Current age/risk-based guidelines should account for individual variation in patient preferences. Copyright 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15229840     DOI: 10.1002/pd.892

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


  7 in total

1.  Preferences for surveillance strategies for women treated for high-grade precancerous cervical lesions.

Authors:  M Kuppermann; J Melnikow; C Slee; D J Tancredi; S Kulasingam; S Birch; L J Helms; A M Bayoumi; G F Sawaya
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2010-08-01       Impact factor: 5.482

2.  Preferences for outcomes associated with decisions to undergo or forgo genetic testing for Lynch syndrome.

Authors:  Miriam Kuppermann; Grace Wang; Shirley Wong; Amie Blanco; Peggy Conrad; Sanae Nakagawa; Jonathan Terdiman; Uri Ladabaum
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2012-07-11       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Advances in medical technology and creation of disparities: the case of Down syndrome.

Authors:  Babak Khoshnood; Catherine De Vigan; Véronique Vodovar; Gérard Bréart; François Goffinet; Béatrice Blondel
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2006-10-31       Impact factor: 9.308

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.  Introducing the non-invasive prenatal test for trisomy 21 in Belgium: a cost-consequences analysis.

Authors:  Mattias Neyt; Frank Hulstaert; Wilfried Gyselaers
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-11-07       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Cost-effectiveness of prenatal screening and diagnostic strategies for Down syndrome: A microsimulation modeling analysis.

Authors:  Wei Zhang; Tima Mohammadi; Julie Sou; Aslam H Anis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-12-04       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Does women's place of birth affect their opportunity for an informed choice about Down syndrome screening? A population-based study in France.

Authors:  Olivia Anselem; Marie-Josèphe Saurel-Cubizolles; Babak Khoshnood; Béatrice Blondel; Priscille Sauvegrain; Nathalie Bertille; Elie Azria
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2021-08-30       Impact factor: 3.007

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.