Literature DB >> 16648415

Beyond race or ethnicity and socioeconomic status: predictors of prenatal testing for Down syndrome.

Miriam Kuppermann1, Lee A Learman, Elena Gates, Steven E Gregorich, Robert F Nease, James Lewis, A Eugene Washington.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify predictors of prenatal genetic testing decisions and explore whether racial or ethnic and socioeconomic differences are explained by knowledge, attitudes, and preferences.
METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study of 827 English-, Spanish-, or Chinese-speaking pregnant women presenting for care by 20 weeks of gestation at 1 of 23 San Francisco Bay-area obstetrics clinics and practices. Our primary outcome measure for women aged less than 35 years was any prenatal genetic testing use compared with none, and for women aged 35 years or older, prenatal testing strategy (no testing, screening test first, straight to invasive diagnostic testing). Baseline questionnaires were completed before any prenatal test use; test use was assessed after 30 gestational weeks.
RESULTS: Among women aged less than 35 years, no racial or ethnic differences in test use emerged. Multivariable analyses yielded three testing predictors: prenatal care site (P = .024), inclination to terminate pregnancy of a Down-syndrome-affected fetus (odds ratio 2.94, P = .002) and belief that modern medicine interferes too much in pregnancy (odds ratio .85, P = .036). Among women aged 35 years or older, observed racial or ethnic and socioeconomic differences in testing strategy were mediated by faith and fatalism, value of testing information, and perceived miscarriage risk. Multivariable predictors of testing strategy included these 3 mediators (P = .035, P < .001, P = .037, respectively) and health care system distrust (P = .045). A total of 29.5% of screen-positive women declined amniocentesis; 6.6% of women screening negative underwent amniocentesis.
CONCLUSION: Racial or ethnic and socioeconomic differences in prenatal testing strategy are mediated by risk perception and attitudes. Screening is not the best choice for many women. Optimal prenatal testing counseling requires clarification of risks and consideration of key attitudes and preferences regarding the possible sequence of events after testing decisions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16648415     DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000214953.90248.db

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  41 in total

1.  Race/Ethnicity and pregnancy decision making: the role of fatalism and subjective social standing.

Authors:  Allison S Bryant; Sanae Nakagawa; Steven E Gregorich; Miriam Kuppermann
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 2.681

2.  Awareness and attitudes regarding prenatal testing among Texas women of childbearing age.

Authors:  Amy P Case; Tunu A Ramadhani; Mark A Canfield; Catherine A Wicklund
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-08-03       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  "Don't Want No Risk and Don't Want No Problems": Public Understandings of the Risks and Benefits of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing in the United States.

Authors:  Megan Allyse; Lauren Carter Sayres; Taylor Goodspeed; Marsha Michie; Mildred K Cho
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2015

4.  Awareness and uptake of measures for preventing CNS birth defects among mothers of affected children in a sub-Saharan African neurosurgeon's practice.

Authors:  Amos O Adeleye; Victor I Joel-Medewase
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2015-05-01       Impact factor: 1.475

5.  Variables influencing pregnancy termination following prenatal diagnosis of fetal chromosome abnormalities.

Authors:  Anne Hawkins; Ana Stenzel; Joanne Taylor; Valerie Y Chock; Louanne Hudgins
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-09-23       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Cell-free fetal DNA testing for fetal aneuploidy and beyond: clinical integration challenges in the US context.

Authors:  Megan Allyse; Lauren C Sayres; Jaime S King; Mary E Norton; Mildred K Cho
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2012-08-03       Impact factor: 6.918

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

8.  Does immigration background influence outcomes after renal transplantation?

Authors:  Fatma Zehra Oztek; Pinar Tekin; Marion Herle; Thomas Mueller; Klaus Arbeiter; Christoph Aufricht
Journal:  Pediatr Nephrol       Date:  2010-11-04       Impact factor: 3.714

9.  A design process for using normative models in shared decision making: a case study in the context of prenatal testing.

Authors:  Sivan Rapaport; Moshe Leshno; Lior Fink
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2012-10-04       Impact factor: 3.377

10.  Trends in survival among children with Down syndrome in 10 regions of the United States.

Authors:  James E Kucik; Mikyong Shin; Csaba Siffel; Lisa Marengo; Adolfo Correa
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2012-12-17       Impact factor: 7.124

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.