Literature DB >> 17492496

What do patients prefer: informed consent models for genetic carrier testing.

K E Ormond1, M Iris, S Banuvar, J Minogue, G J Annas, S Elias.   

Abstract

The recent increased number of conditions for which patients can undergo genetic carrier testing raises the question of how best to obtain pre-test informed consent. Clinical approaches vary from a minimalist model to a model where patients are given detailed information about all conditions to be screened for. Few data exist as to patient preferences, or how information impacts decision-making. Eight high-literacy focus groups were conducted to assess the knowledge and preferences of pregnant patients and their male partners. Most groups indicated that some balance between details and brevity was optimal, recognizing that anxiety can occur when patients are provided with too much information and that the wide range of tests offered during pregnancy often led to confusion. Critical areas for the informed consent process included (1) details about the conditions and risk of being a carrier, (2) logistics of testing, (3) next steps if the test is positive, and (4) prognosis, options and resources if the child were to be affected with a disorder. It will be useful to develop model consent programs and prospectively assess their impact on informed consent and patient satisfaction, both when positive and negative results are received.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17492496     DOI: 10.1007/s10897-007-9094-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Genet Couns        ISSN: 1059-7700            Impact factor:   2.537


  12 in total

Review 1.  Informed consent: not just for procedures anymore.

Authors:  Andrew D Feld
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 10.864

2.  A new definition of Genetic Counseling: National Society of Genetic Counselors' Task Force report.

Authors:  Robert Resta; Barbara Bowles Biesecker; Robin L Bennett; Sandra Blum; Susan Estabrooks Hahn; Michelle N Strecker; Janet L Williams
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 78: hemoglobinopathies in pregnancy.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 7.661

4.  Two models of implementing informed consent.

Authors:  C W Lidz; P S Appelbaum; A Meisel
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1988-06

Review 5.  Genetic counseling.

Authors:  F C Fraser
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1974-09       Impact factor: 11.025

6.  Prenatal diagnosis and elective termination of Down syndrome in a racially mixed population in Hawaii, 1987-1996.

Authors:  M B Forrester; R D Merz
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 3.050

7.  Generic consent for genetic screening.

Authors:  S Elias; G J Annas
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1994-06-02       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Lack of interest by nonpregnant couples in population-based cystic fibrosis carrier screening.

Authors:  E W Clayton; V L Hannig; J P Pfotenhauer; R A Parker; P W Campbell; J A Phillips
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 11.025

9.  Rapid estimate of adult literacy in medicine: a shortened screening instrument.

Authors:  T C Davis; S W Long; R H Jackson; E J Mayeaux; R B George; P W Murphy; M A Crouch
Journal:  Fam Med       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 1.756

10.  Informed choice: understanding knowledge in the context of screening uptake.

Authors:  Susan Michie; Elizabeth Dormandy; Theresa M Marteau
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2003-07
View more
  17 in total

1.  Carrier screening in preconception consultation in primary care.

Authors:  Sylvia A Metcalfe
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2011-12-20

Review 2.  Carrier screening for beta-thalassaemia: a review of international practice.

Authors:  Nicole E Cousens; Clara L Gaff; Sylvia A Metcalfe; Martin B Delatycki
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2010-06-23       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 3.  Medical ethics for the genome world: a paper from the 2007 William Beaumont hospital symposium on molecular pathology.

Authors:  Kelly E Ormond
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2008-08-07       Impact factor: 5.568

4.  Comparison of Informed Consent Preferences for Multiplex Genetic Carrier Screening among a Diverse Population.

Authors:  Ashley Reeves; Angela Trepanier
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-07-16       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  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

6.  The changing landscape of carrier screening: expanding technology and options?.

Authors:  Michelle L McGowan; Deborah Cho; Richard R Sharp
Journal:  Health Matrix Clevel       Date:  2013

7.  Experiences among Women with Positive Prenatal Expanded Carrier Screening Results.

Authors:  Erin Rothwell; Erin Johnson; Amber Mathiesen; Kylie Golden; Audrey Metcalf; Nancy C Rose; Jeffrey R Botkin
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-10-29       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 8.  Pre- and post-test genetic counseling for chromosomal and Mendelian disorders.

Authors:  Jill Fonda Allen; Katie Stoll; Barbara A Bernhardt
Journal:  Semin Perinatol       Date:  2015-12-21       Impact factor: 3.300

9.  Trait anxiety, information modality, and responses to communications about prenatal genetic testing.

Authors:  Cécile Muller; Linda D Cameron
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2014-01-31

Review 10.  Understanding patient and provider perceptions and expectations of genomic medicine.

Authors:  Michael J Hall; Andrea D Forman; Susan V Montgomery; Kim L Rainey; Mary B Daly
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2014-07-03       Impact factor: 3.454

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.