Literature DB >> 19924734

Ambivalence toward undergoing invasive prenatal testing: an exploration of its origins.

Julie Chevalier Sapp1, Sara Chandros Hull, Shelby Duffer, Sarah Zornetzer, Erica Sutton, Theresa M Marteau, Barbara Bowles Biesecker.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study explores ambivalence toward undergoing amniocentesis among pregnant women with overall positive attitudes. Its novelty lies in the characterization of the type and origins of the ambivalence.
METHOD: Thirty-six women between 35 and 44 years of age were recruited from a US prenatal testing center to participate in structured telephone interviews.
RESULTS: Thirty women chose to undergo testing. Attitudes toward undergoing amniocentesis were generally positive, although all participants simultaneously described feeling ambivalent. The women desired the information that amniocentesis could provide yet did not want to place their fetus at risk. Participants cited religious, moral, ethical and intellectual values important in shaping their attitudes toward undergoing amniocentesis. Important referents such as partners, other pregnant women, family members and physicians influenced their decisions.
CONCLUSION: Tensions were evident among the intellectual, moral and spiritual values that contribute to ambivalence toward undergoing amniocentesis. Illuminating and discussing such tensions during the genetic counseling sessions prior to testing may resolve some of this ambivalence and thereby increase the quality of decisions women make. Copyright (c) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 19924734      PMCID: PMC2880848          DOI: 10.1002/pd.2343

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prenat Diagn        ISSN: 0197-3851            Impact factor:   3.050


  25 in total

Review 1.  Whatever happened to qualitative description?

Authors:  M Sandelowski
Journal:  Res Nurs Health       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 2.228

2.  Facilitating informed choice in prenatal testing: how well are we doing?

Authors:  T M Marteau; E Dormandy
Journal:  Am J Med Genet       Date:  2001

Review 3.  ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 27: Clinical Management Guidelines for Obstetrician-Gynecologists. Prenatal diagnosis of fetal chromosomal abnormalities.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 7.661

4.  'Collective fictions': similarities in reasons for accepting maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein screening among women of diverse ethnic and social class backgrounds.

Authors:  Nancy Anne Press; C H Browner
Journal:  Fetal Diagn Ther       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 2.587

5.  A measure of informed choice.

Authors:  T M Marteau; E Dormandy; S Michie
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.377

6.  Norms and prenorms on prenatal diagnosis: new ways to deal with morality in counseling.

Authors:  D van Berkel; C van der Weele
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  1999-06

7.  The routinization of prenatal testing.

Authors:  Sonia Mateu Suter
Journal:  Am J Law Med       Date:  2002

8.  The multi-dimensional measure of informed choice: a validation study.

Authors:  Susan Michie; Elizabeth Dormandy; Theresa M Marteau
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2002-09

9.  Applying decision analysis to facilitate informed decision making about prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Hilary L Bekker; Jenny Hewison; Jim G Thornton
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 3.050

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
  14 in total

1.  Prenatal genetic testing: an investigation of determining factors affecting the decision-making process.

Authors:  Monica Pivetti; Giannino Melotti
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-04-03       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Invasive prenatal testing decisions in pregnancy after infertility.

Authors:  Colleen Caleshu; Shoshana Shiloh; Cristofer Price; Julie Sapp; Barbara Biesecker
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.050

3.  Genetic testing likelihood: the impact of abortion views and quality of life information on women's decisions.

Authors:  Jessica L Wilson; Gail M Ferguson; Judith M Thorn
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2010-11-06       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  It's the amount of thought that counts: when ambivalence contributes to mammography screening delay.

Authors:  Suzanne C O'Neill; Isaac M Lipkus; Jennifer M Gierisch; Barbara K Rimer; J Michael Bowling
Journal:  Womens Health Issues       Date:  2011-11-03

5.  It's complicated - Factors predicting decisional conflict in prenatal diagnostic testing.

Authors:  Cécile Muller; Linda D Cameron
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2015-04-13       Impact factor: 3.377

6.  Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis for fetal sex determination: benefits and disadvantages from the service users' perspective.

Authors:  Celine Lewis; Melissa Hill; Heather Skirton; Lyn S Chitty
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-03-28       Impact factor: 4.246

7.  Exploring the role of religiosity and spirituality in amniocentesis decision-making among Latinas.

Authors:  Sarah Guerra Seth; Thomas Goka; Andrea Harbison; Lisa Hollier; Susan Peterson; Lois Ramondetta; Sarah Jane Noblin
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2011-06-22       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  Prenatal diagnosis and termination of pregnancy: perspectives of South African parents of children with Down syndrome.

Authors:  Chantelle Jennifer Scott; Merle Futter; Ambroise Wonkam
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2012-10-25

9.  NIPT in a clinical setting: an analysis of uptake in the first months of clinical availability.

Authors:  Joanne B Taylor; Valerie Y Chock; Louanne Hudgins
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-05-31       Impact factor: 2.537

10.  Non-invasive prenatal testing for single gene disorders: exploring the ethics.

Authors:  Zuzana Deans; Melissa Hill; Lyn S Chitty; Celine Lewis
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-11-28       Impact factor: 4.246

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.