Literature DB >> 21293275

Risk and uncertainty: shifting decision making for aneuploidy screening to the first trimester of pregnancy.

Ruth M Farrell1, Natasha Dolgin, Susan A Flocke, Victoria Winbush, Mary Beth Mercer, Christian Simon.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The clinical introduction of first trimester aneuploidy screening uniquely challenges the informed consent process for both patients and providers. This study investigated key aspects of the decision-making process for this new form of prenatal genetic screening.
METHODS: Qualitative data were collected by nine focus groups that comprised women of different reproductive histories (N = 46 participants). Discussions explored themes regarding patient decision making for first trimester aneuploidy screening. Sessions were audio recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed to identify themes.
RESULTS: Multiple levels of uncertainty characterize the decision-making process for first trimester aneuploidy screening. Baseline levels of uncertainty existed for participants in the context of an early pregnancy and the debate about the benefit of fetal genetic testing in general. Additional sources of uncertainty during the decision-making process were generated from weighing the advantages and disadvantages of initiating screening in the first trimester as opposed to waiting until the second. Questions of the quality and quantity of information and the perceived benefit of earlier access to fetal information were leading themes. Barriers to access prenatal care in early pregnancy presented participants with additional concerns about the ability to make informed decisions about prenatal genetic testing.
CONCLUSIONS: The option of the first trimester aneuploidy screening test in early pregnancy generates decision-making uncertainty that can interfere with the informed consent process. Mechanisms must be developed to facilitate informed decision making for this new form of prenatal genetic screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21293275     DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3182076633

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Med        ISSN: 1098-3600            Impact factor:   8.822


  10 in total

1.  Cell-free fetal DNA testing for fetal aneuploidy and beyond: clinical integration challenges in the US context.

Authors:  Megan Allyse; Lauren C Sayres; Jaime S King; Mary E Norton; Mildred K Cho
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2012-08-03       Impact factor: 6.918

2.  Comparing genetic counselor's and patient's perceptions of needs in prenatal chromosomal microarray testing.

Authors:  Sarah A Walser; Katherine S Kellom; Steven C Palmer; Barbara A Bernhardt
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2015-06-19       Impact factor: 3.050

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.  Self-Regulation Principles Underlying Risk Perception and Decision Making within the Context of Genomic Testing.

Authors:  Linda D Cameron; Barbara Bowles Biesecker; Ellen Peters; Jennifer M Taber; William M P Klein
Journal:  Soc Personal Psychol Compass       Date:  2017-05-05

Review 5.  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

6.  Is preparation a good reason for prenatal genetic testing? Ethical and critical questions.

Authors:  Marsha Michie
Journal:  Birth Defects Res       Date:  2020-03-01       Impact factor: 2.344

Review 7.  Supporting Patient Autonomy and Informed Decision-Making in Prenatal Genetic Testing.

Authors:  Katie Stoll; Judith Jackson
Journal:  Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 5.159

8.  A Framework for Describing the Influence of Service Organisation and Delivery on Participation in Fetal Anomaly Screening in England.

Authors:  Hyacinth O Ukuhor; Janet Hirst; S José Closs; William J Montelpare
Journal:  J Pregnancy       Date:  2017-03-22

9.  It's More Than a Blood Test: Patients' Perspectives on Noninvasive Prenatal Testing.

Authors:  Ruth M Farrell; Mary Beth Mercer; Patricia K Agatisa; Marissa B Smith; Elliot Philipson
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2014-06-19       Impact factor: 4.241

10.  Women's experiences receiving abnormal prenatal chromosomal microarray testing results.

Authors:  Barbara A Bernhardt; Danielle Soucier; Karen Hanson; Melissa S Savage; Laird Jackson; Ronald J Wapner
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-09-06       Impact factor: 8.822

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.