Literature DB >> 19522793

Is informed choice in prenatal testing universally valued? A population-based survey in Europe and Asia.

A van den Heuvel1, L Chitty, E Dormandy, A Newson, S Attwood, R Ma, B Masturzo, E Pajkrt, T M Marteau.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Informed choice has become an integral part of healthcare provision. We investigated the extent to which informed choice in the context of prenatal testing is universally valued.
DESIGN: The value attached to parental choice in prenatal testing and the perceived importance of significant others' views when making test decisions were assessed in a cross-sectional, descriptive study. SAMPLE AND
SETTING: Male and female participants from general population samples in six countries: the UK (n = 210), the Netherlands (n = 197), Italy (n = 200), Greece (n = 200), China (n = 200) and India (n = 199).
METHODS: The questionnaires assessed values attached to parental involvement and the perceived importance of the views of significant others when making prenatal test decisions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Attitudes towards parental choice and attitudes towards the importance of others' views were analysed by age, gender and education using Chi-squared tests, Analysis of Variances and multiple logistic regression.
RESULTS: The majority of respondents from Northern European countries believed that undergoing prenatal tests should reflect parental choice. Conversely, only a minority of respondents from Southern European and Asian countries advocated parental choice, with most expressing the belief that all pregnant women should have the procedure. The perceived importance of significant others' views when making test decisions also varied across countries: those in favour of parental choice perceived others' views as less important in the test decision. A preference for prenatal testing decisions to reflect an informed choice was predicted by (i) country and (ii) the perceived importance of significant others' views. Education, age and gender did not predict decisions.
CONCLUSION: The implications of these findings for policy and practice depend upon whether placing a low value on parental choice, but a high value on the others' views regarding prenatal testing is considered an informed choice. Further research is needed to determine whether cultural variation in values remains significant in a multicultural society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19522793     DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02174.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJOG        ISSN: 1470-0328            Impact factor:   6.531


  10 in total

1.  Attitudes Towards Prenatal Genetic Counseling, Prenatal Genetic Testing, and Termination of Pregnancy among Southeast and East Asian Women in the United States.

Authors:  Ginger J Tsai; Carrie A Cameron; Jennifer L Czerwinski; Hector Mendez-Figueroa; Susan K Peterson; Sarah Jane Noblin
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-03-02       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Is advice incompatible with autonomous informed choice? Women's perceptions of advice in the context of antenatal screening: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Shenaz Ahmed; Louise D Bryant; Zahra Tizro; Darren Shickle
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2012-04-19       Impact factor: 3.377

3.  Toward an Ethically Sensitive Implementation of Noninvasive Prenatal Screening in the Global Context.

Authors:  Jessica Mozersky; Vardit Ravitsky; Rayna Rapp; Marsha Michie; Subhashini Chandrasekharan; Megan Allyse
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 2.683

4.  Interpretations of autonomous decision-making in antenatal genetic screening among women in China, Hong Kong and Pakistan.

Authors:  Shenaz Ahmed; Huso Yi; Dong Dong; Jianfeng Zhu; Hussain Jafri; Yasmin Rashid; Olivia My Ngan; Mushtaq Ahmed
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 4.246

5.  Ethical, social, and cultural issues related to clinical genetic testing and counseling in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

Authors:  Adrina Zhong; Benedict Darren; Bethina Loiseau; Li Qun Betty He; Trillium Chang; Jessica Hill; Helen Dimaras
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2018-08-03       Impact factor: 8.822

6.  Evaluation of preferences of women and healthcare professionals in Singapore for implementation of noninvasive prenatal testing for Down syndrome.

Authors:  Angela Natalie Barrett; Henna Vishal Advani; Lyn S Chitty; Lin Lin Su; Arijit Biswas; Wei Ching Tan; Melissa Hill; Mahesh Choolani
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 1.858

7.  User-focused data sharing agreements: a foundation for the genomic future.

Authors:  Carolyn Petersen
Journal:  JAMIA Open       Date:  2019-10-01

Review 8.  Decision-making factors in prenatal testing: A systematic review.

Authors:  Valentina Di Mattei; Federica Ferrari; Gaia Perego; Valentina Tobia; Fabio Mauro; Massimo Candiani
Journal:  Health Psychol Open       Date:  2021-01-13

9.  Preferences for prenatal tests for Down syndrome: an international comparison of the views of pregnant women and health professionals.

Authors:  Melissa Hill; Jo-Ann Johnson; Sylvie Langlois; Hyun Lee; Stephanie Winsor; Brigid Dineley; Marisa Horniachek; Faustina Lalatta; Luisa Ronzoni; Angela N Barrett; Henna V Advani; Mahesh Choolani; Ron Rabinowitz; Eva Pajkrt; Rachèl V van Schendel; Lidewij Henneman; Wieke Rommers; Caterina M Bilardo; Paula Rendeiro; Maria João Ribeiro; José Rocha; Ida Charlotte Bay Lund; Olav B Petersen; Naja Becher; Ida Vogel; Vigdis Stefánsdottir; Sigrun Ingvarsdottir; Helga Gottfredsdottir; Stephen Morris; Lyn S Chitty
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-11-18       Impact factor: 4.246

10.  Women's Attitudes towards the Option to Choose between Karyotyping and Rapid Targeted Testing during Pregnancy.

Authors:  Angelique J A Kooper; Dominique F C M Smeets; Ilse Feenstra; Lia D E Wijnberger; Robbert J P Rijnders; Rik W P Quartero; Peter F Boekkooi; John M G van Vugt; Arie P T Smits
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Int       Date:  2013-04-30
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.