Literature DB >> 20954167

Knowledge of prenatal screening and psychological management of test decisions.

K Dahl1, L Hvidman, F S Jørgensen, U S Kesmodel.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To study associations between pregnant women's knowledge of prenatal screening and decisional conflict in deciding whether to participate in first-trimester screening for Down syndrome in a setting of required informed consent, and to study associations between knowledge and personal wellbeing, and worries in pregnancy.
METHODS: A population-based cross-sectional study with 6427 pregnant women consecutively included before the time of a nuchal translucency scan. Participants were recruited from three Danish obstetric departments offering prenatal screening free of charge. The results presented are based on 4111 pregnant women (64%). Knowledge was measured using 15 questions. The primary outcomes were measured using pre-existing validated scales, i.e. The Decisional Conflict Scale, the WHO Well-Being Index and the Cambridge Worry Scale. Associations were analyzed by multivariate logistic and linear regression analyses.
RESULTS: A higher level of knowledge was associated with less decisional conflict when deciding whether to participate in first-trimester Down syndrome screening (adjusted odds ratio 1.31 (95% CI, 1.26-1.37)). An increased level of knowledge was also associated with higher levels of wellbeing (adjusted linear coefficient 0.51 (95% CI, 0.26-0.75), P < 0.001). Knowledge was not associated with worries, either in general or specifically about something being wrong with the baby.
CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate the importance of ensuring a high level of knowledge for pregnant women making choices about participation in prenatal screening for Down syndrome in order to improve the psychological management of test decisions.
Copyright © 2011 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 20954167     DOI: 10.1002/uog.8856

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0960-7692            Impact factor:   7.299


  16 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Informed Decision-Making in the Context of Prenatal Chromosomal Microarray.

Authors:  Jessica Baker; Cheryl Shuman; David Chitayat; Syed Wasim; Nan Okun; Johannes Keunen; Renee Hofstedter; Rachel Silver
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Best ethical practices for clinicians and laboratories in the provision of noninvasive prenatal testing.

Authors:  M A Allyse; L C Sayres; M Havard; J S King; H T Greely; L Hudgins; J Taylor; M E Norton; M K Cho; D Magnus; K E Ormond
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2013-05-21       Impact factor: 3.050

4.  Offering a choice between NIPT and invasive PND in prenatal genetic counseling: the impact of clinician characteristics on patients' test uptake.

Authors:  Sanne L van der Steen; Diewertje Houtman; Iris M Bakkeren; Robert-Jan H Galjaard; Marike G Polak; Jan J Busschbach; Aad Tibben; Sam R Riedijk
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-10-08       Impact factor: 4.246

5.  Exploring Women's Health Information Needs During Pregnancy: A Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Marzieh Javanmardi; Mahnaz Noroozi; Firouzeh Mostafavi; Hasan Ashrafi-Rizi
Journal:  J Family Reprod Health       Date:  2020-12

6.  Attitudes towards non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy among US adults of reproductive age.

Authors:  M Allyse; L C Sayres; T A Goodspeed; M K Cho
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2014-03-06       Impact factor: 2.521

7.  Informed Choice for Participation in Down Syndrome Screening: Development and Content of a Web-Based Decision Aid.

Authors:  Mette Maria Skjøth; Helle Ploug Hansen; Eva Draborg; Claus Duedal Pedersen; Ronald F Lamont; Jan Stener Jørgensen
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2015-09-21

8.  Coping with worry while waiting for diagnostic results: a qualitative study of the experiences of pregnant couples following a high-risk prenatal screening result.

Authors:  Stina Lou; Camilla P Nielsen; Lone Hvidman; Olav B Petersen; Mette B Risør
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2016-10-21       Impact factor: 3.007

9.  Knowledge and future preference of Chinese women in a major public hospital in Hong Kong after undergoing non-invasive prenatal testing for positive aneuploidy screening: a questionnaire survey.

Authors:  Kam On Kou; Chung Fan Poon; Wai Ching Tse; Shui Lam Mak; Kwok Yin Leung
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2015-09-02       Impact factor: 3.007

Review 10.  The Psychological Challenges of Replacing Conventional Karyotyping with Genomic SNP Array Analysis in Prenatal Testing.

Authors:  Sam Riedijk; Karin E M Diderich; Sanne L van der Steen; Lutgarde C P Govaerts; Marieke Joosten; Maarten F C M Knapen; Femke A T de Vries; Diane van Opstal; Aad Tibben; Robert-Jan H Galjaard
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2014-07-03       Impact factor: 4.241

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.