Literature DB >> 15505874

Factors affecting women's preference for type of prenatal screening test for chromosomal anomalies.

K Spencer1, D Aitken.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain, by means of a questionnaire, women's preferences for four different approaches to prenatal screening for Down syndrome.
METHODS: Women attending antenatal clinics at six UK maternity units were asked to put in order of preference four different approaches to screening for Down syndrome all of which had the same false positive rate of 5%. The options were: (1) first-trimester testing, 90% detection of Down syndrome with results available in 1 h at one-stop clinics for the assessment of risk (OSCAR); (2) first-trimester testing, 90% detection and results available within 2-3 days (combined screening); (3) first-trimester testing plus second-trimester testing, 93% detection and results available within 2-3 days of second test (integrated testing); (4) second-trimester testing, 75% detection and results available within 2-3 days.
RESULTS: Over 1100 women attending antenatal clinics at six maternity units across the UK returned the questionnaire. A total of 75% of women selected a first-trimester test (option 1 or option 2) as their first choice with 68.2% expressing a preference for the OSCAR approach and a further 6.8% for combined screening. Twenty-four percent of women opted for integrated testing as their first choice with only 1% expressing a preference for second-trimester screening.
CONCLUSIONS: A first-trimester test is preferred by the majority of women over a test with marginally higher detection rate that delivers results later in pregnancy. Timing and rapid reporting of results appear to influence women's choice of test.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15505874     DOI: 10.1002/uog.1768

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0960-7692            Impact factor:   7.299


  6 in total

1.  The use of multi-criteria decision analysis weight elicitation techniques in patients with mild cognitive impairment: a pilot study.

Authors:  Janine A van Til; James G Dolan; Anne M Stiggelbout; Karin C G M Groothuis; Maarten J Ijzerman
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2008-04-01       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Rates of prenatal screening across health care regions in Ontario, Canada: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Robin Z Hayeems; Michael Campitelli; Xiaomu Ma; Tianhua Huang; Mark Walker; Astrid Guttmann
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2015-04-02

3.  Noninvasive prenatal diagnosis: pregnant women's interest and expected uptake.

Authors:  Reana Tischler; Louanne Hudgins; Yair J Blumenfeld; Henry T Greely; Kelly E Ormond
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2011-10-26       Impact factor: 3.050

4.  Psychological outcomes, knowledge and preferences of pregnant women on first-trimester screening for fetal structural abnormalities: A prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Francesca Bardi; Merel Bakker; Monique J A Kenkhuis; Adelita V Ranchor; Marian K Bakker; Ayten Elvan; Erwin Birnie; Caterina M Bilardo
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-01-27       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Comparison of different strategies in prenatal screening for Down's syndrome: cost effectiveness analysis of computer simulation.

Authors:  Jean Gekas; Geneviève Gagné; Emmanuel Bujold; Daniel Douillard; Jean-Claude Forest; Daniel Reinharz; François Rousseau
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-02-13

6.  Facilitating autonomous, confident and satisfying choices: a mixed-method study of women's choice-making in prenatal screening for common aneuploidies.

Authors:  An Chen; Henni Tenhunen; Paulus Torkki; Antti Peltokorpi; Seppo Heinonen; Paul Lillrank; Vedran Stefanovic
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2018-05-02       Impact factor: 3.007

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.