Literature DB >> 16953859

Are pregnant Australian women well informed about prenatal genetic screening? A systematic investigation using the Multidimensional Measure of Informed Choice.

Heather J Rowe1, Jane R W Fisher, Julie A Quinlivan.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Ethical practice requires that decisions to participate in medical care be well informed. Investigations into prenatal genetic screening for Down syndrome have assessed women's knowledge but have not examined whether being well informed about the potential consequences of screening, such as subsequent diagnostic testing, diagnosis and termination, is associated with psychological distress for women. AIMS: To assess informed choice to participate in second trimester maternal serum screening (2MSS) in pregnant women using a validated measure and to compare anxiety levels in women who were well informed versus poorly informed.
METHODS: A prospective cohort study where pregnant women completed the Multidimensional Measure of Informed Choice and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale immediately prior to the offer of 2MSS. Follow-up questionnaires assessing psychological symptomatology were completed at 20 and 30 weeks gestation.
RESULTS: Only 37% of decisions were informed; those who participated in screening were more likely to have made an informed decision than those who did not (P = 0.01); 31% did not know that miscarriage was a possible consequence of diagnostic testing subsequent to an increased risk screening result and only 62% correctly identified that termination of pregnancy would be offered if Down syndrome were to be diagnosed. Short-term anxiety levels in those who were well informed were not significantly different from those who were poorly informed (P = 0.14).
CONCLUSIONS: Health promotion strategies, which are readily applicable in clinical settings and address diverse learning needs and attitudes of pregnant women, are needed. The impact of antenatal screening on other dimensions of pregnancy psychology remains to be investigated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16953859     DOI: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2006.00630.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol        ISSN: 0004-8666            Impact factor:   2.100


  17 in total

1.  Assessment of psychosocial outcomes in genetic counseling research: an overview of available measurement scales.

Authors:  Nadine A Kasparian; Claire E Wakefield; Bettina Meiser
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-08-13       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 2.  Risk factors for depressive symptoms during pregnancy: a systematic review.

Authors:  Christie A Lancaster; Katherine J Gold; Heather A Flynn; Harim Yoo; Sheila M Marcus; Matthew M Davis
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 8.661

3.  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

Review 4.  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

5.  Women's Understanding and Attitudes towards Down Syndrome and Other Genetic Conditions in the Context of Prenatal Screening.

Authors:  Sarah Long; Peter O'Leary; Roanna Lobo; Jan E Dickinson
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-10-24       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Defining Our Clinical Practice: The Identification of Genetic Counseling Outcomes Utilizing the Reciprocal Engagement Model.

Authors:  Krista Redlinger-Grosse; Patricia McCarthy Veach; Stephanie Cohen; Bonnie S LeRoy; Ian M MacFarlane; Heather Zierhut
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-07-25       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  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

8.  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

9.  Exploring informed choice in the context of prenatal testing: findings from a qualitative study.

Authors:  Beth K Potter; Natasha O'Reilly; Holly Etchegary; Heather Howley; Ian D Graham; Mark Walker; Doug Coyle; Yelena Chorny; Mario Cappelli; Isabelle Boland; Brenda J Wilson
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2008-09-16       Impact factor: 3.377

10.  NIPT and Informed Consent: an Assessment of Patient Understanding of a Negative NIPT Result.

Authors:  Julie L Piechan; Karrie A Hines; Daniel L Koller; Kristyne Stone; Kimberly Quaid; Wilfredo Torres-Martinez; Divya Wilson Mathews; Tatiana Foroud; Lola Cook
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-04-01       Impact factor: 2.537

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.