Literature DB >> 19692718

Ethnic differences in informed decision-making about prenatal screening for Down's syndrome.

Mirjam P Fransen1, Marie-Louise Essink-Bot, Ineke Vogel, Johan P Mackenbach, Eric A P Steegers, Hajo I J Wildschut.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess ethnic variations in informed decision-making about prenatal screening for Down's syndrome and to examine the contribution of background and decision-making variables.
METHODS: Pregnant women of Dutch, Turkish and Surinamese origin were recruited between 2006 and 2008 from community midwifery or obstetrical practices in The Netherlands. Each woman was personally interviewed 3 weeks (mean) after booking for prenatal care. Knowledge, attitude and participation in prenatal screening were assessed following the 'Multidimensional Measure of Informed Choice' that has been developed and applied in the UK.
RESULTS: In total, 71% of the Dutch women were classified as informed decision-makers, compared with 5% of the Turkish and 26% of the Surinamese women. Differences between Surinamese and Dutch women could largely be attributed to differences in educational level and age. Differences between Dutch and Turkish women could mainly be attributed to differences in language skills and gender emancipation.
CONCLUSION: Women from ethnic minority groups less often made an informed decision whether or not to participate in prenatal screening. Interventions to decrease these ethnic differences should first of all be aimed at overcoming language barriers and increasing comprehension among women with a low education level. To further develop diversity-sensitive strategies for counselling, it should be investigated how women from different ethnic backgrounds value informed decision-making in prenatal screening, what decision-relevant knowledge they need and what they take into account when considering participation in prenatal screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19692718     DOI: 10.1136/jech.2009.088237

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health        ISSN: 0143-005X            Impact factor:   3.710


  17 in total

1.  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

2.  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 3.  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

4.  The effect of a decision aid on informed decision-making in the era of non-invasive prenatal testing: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Lean Beulen; Michelle van den Berg; Brigitte Hw Faas; Ilse Feenstra; Michiel Hageman; John Mg van Vugt; Mireille N Bekker
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2016-05-18       Impact factor: 4.246

5.  Study protocol: population screening for colorectal cancer by colonoscopy or CT colonography: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Thomas R de Wijkerslooth; Margriet C de Haan; Esther M Stoop; Marije Deutekom; Paul Fockens; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Maarten Thomeer; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot; Monique E van Leerdam; Ernst J Kuipers; Evelien Dekker; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-05-19       Impact factor: 3.067

6.  Pregnant Hispanic women's views and knowledge of prenatal genetic testing.

Authors:  Robin L Page; Christina Murphey; Yahyahan Aras; Lei-Shih Chen; Ryan Loftin
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2021-01-26       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Risk and reproductive decisions: British Pakistani couples' responses to genetic counselling.

Authors:  Alison Shaw
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2011-05-17       Impact factor: 4.634

8.  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

9.  Factors affecting the uptake of prenatal screening tests for congenital anomalies; a multicentre prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Janneke T Gitsels-van der Wal; Pieternel S Verhoeven; Judith Manniën; Linda Martin; Hans S Reinders; Evelien Spelten; Eileen K Hutton
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2014-08-09       Impact factor: 3.007

10.  Development and validation of a measure of informed choice for women undergoing non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy.

Authors:  Celine Lewis; Melissa Hill; Heather Skirton; Lyn S Chitty
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-10-28       Impact factor: 4.246

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.