Literature DB >> 15915085

Are pregnant women making informed choices about prenatal screening?

Matthijs van den Berg1, Danielle R M Timmermans, Leo P Ten Kate, John M G van Vugt, Gerrit van der Wal.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Prenatal screening should enable pregnant women to make informed choices. An informed decision is defined as being based on sufficient, relevant information and consistent with the decision maker's values. This study aims to assess to what extent pregnant women make informed choices about prenatal screening, and to assess the psychological effects of informed decision-making.
METHODS: The study sample consisted of 1159 pregnant women who were offered the nuchal translucency measurement or the maternal serum screening test. Level of knowledge, value consistency, informed choice, decisional conflict, satisfaction with decision, and anxiety were measured using questionnaires.
RESULTS: Of the participants, 83% were classified as having sufficient knowledge about prenatal screening, 82% made a value-consistent decision to accept or decline prenatal screening, and 68% made an informed decision. Informed choice was associated with more satisfaction with the decision, less decisional conflict (this applied only to test acceptors), but was not associated with less anxiety.
CONCLUSION: Although the rate of informed choice is relatively high, substantial percentages of women making uninformed choices due to insufficient knowledge, value inconsistency, or both, were found. Informed choice appeared to be psychologically beneficial. The present study underlines the importance of achieving informed choice in the context of prenatal screening.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Genetics and Reproduction

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15915085     DOI: 10.1097/01.gim.0000162876.65555.ab

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Med        ISSN: 1098-3600            Impact factor:   8.822


  46 in total

1.  Ethical, legal, and social issues in health technology assessment for prenatal/preconceptional and newborn screening: a workshop report.

Authors:  B K Potter; D Avard; V Entwistle; C Kennedy; P Chakraborty; M McGuire; B J Wilson
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2008-09-03       Impact factor: 2.000

2.  Prenatal testing for Down syndrome: comparison of screening practices in the UK and USA.

Authors:  Dagmar Tapon
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2009-11-03       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Rapid aneuploidy detection or karyotyping? Ethical reflection.

Authors:  Antina de Jong; Wybo J Dondorp; Daniëlle R M Timmermans; Jan M M van Lith; Guido M W R de Wert
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2011-06-01       Impact factor: 4.246

4.  Patients' Knowledge of Prenatal Screening for Trisomy 21.

Authors:  Michal Sheinis; Kira Bensimon; Amanda Selk
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-07-14       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Factors Associated with Acceptability, Consideration and Intention of Uptake of Direct-To-Consumer Genetic Testing: A Survey Study.

Authors:  Kelly F J Stewart; Daša Kokole; Anke Wesselius; Annemie M W J Schols; Maurice P Zeegers; Hein de Vries; Liesbeth A D M van Osch
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2018-10-25       Impact factor: 2.000

6.  Will the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing for Down's syndrome undermine informed choice?

Authors:  Caroline Silcock; Lih-Mei Liao; Melissa Hill; Lyn S Chitty
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-02-20       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 7.  Measuring informed choice in population-based reproductive genetic screening: a systematic review.

Authors:  Alice Grace Ames; Sylvia Ann Metcalfe; Alison Dalton Archibald; Rony Emily Duncan; Jon Emery
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-05-21       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 8.  A systematic review of decision support needs of parents making child health decisions.

Authors:  Cath Jackson; Francine M Cheater; Innes Reid
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 3.377

9.  Development of a fragile X syndrome (FXS) knowledge scale: towards a modified multidimensional measure of informed choice for FXS population carrier screening.

Authors:  Alice G Ames; Alice Jaques; Obioha C Ukoumunne; Alison D Archibald; Rony E Duncan; Jon Emery; Sylvia A Metcalfe
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2012-10-15       Impact factor: 3.377

10.  A randomized trial of a prenatal genetic testing interactive computerized information aid.

Authors:  Lynn M Yee; Michael Wolf; Rebecca Mullen; Ashley R Bergeron; Stacy Cooper Bailey; Robert Levine; William A Grobman
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2014-03-18       Impact factor: 3.050

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.