Literature DB >> 22302760

Informing on prenatal screening for Down syndrome prior to conception. An empirical and ethical perspective.

Marleen Schoonen1, Boukje van der Zee, Hajo Wildschut, Inez de Beaufort, Guido de Wert, Harry de Koning, Marie-Louise Essink-Bot, Eric Steegers.   

Abstract

In most Western countries, information on prenatal screening for Down syndrome is provided in the first-trimester of pregnancy. The purpose of this study was to examine whether this information should additionally be provided before pregnancy to improve the informed decision-making process. In an empirical study, we obtained data from pregnant women with respect to their preferences regarding information on prenatal screening preconceptionally. Questionnaire data (n = 510) showed that 55.7% of responding women considered participating in prenatal screening for Down syndrome before pregnancy. 28.0% of women possessed information on prenatal screening preconceptionally. 84.6% preferred not to receive information preconceptionally in retrospect. In an ethical analysis, we elaborated on these preferences by weighing pros and cons. We considered two arguments against the provision of information on prenatal screening preconceptionally: women's preference to receive information in a step-by-step manner, and the risk of providing a directive message. We identified three reasons supporting its provision preconceptionally: the likelihood of making an informed decision could, firstly, be increased by "unchaining" the initial information from possible subsequent decisions, and, secondly, by providing women sufficient time to deliberate. Thirdly, the probability of equal access to prenatal screening may increase. To conclude with, we propose to incorporate an information offer on prenatal screening for Down syndrome in preconception care consultations. By offering information, instead of providing information, prospective parents are enabled to either accept or decline the information, which respects both their right to know and their right not-to-know.
Copyright © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22302760     DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.35213

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med Genet A        ISSN: 1552-4825            Impact factor:   2.802


  4 in total

1.  Swedish University Students' Opinion Regarding Information About Soft Markers.

Authors:  Afsaneh Hayat Roshanai; Peter Lindgren; Karin Nordin; Charlotta Ingvoldstad
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-07-12       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 2.  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

3.  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

4.  Considering medical risk information and communicating values: A mixed-method study of women's choice in prenatal testing.

Authors:  An Chen; Henni Tenhunen; Paulus Torkki; Seppo Heinonen; Paul Lillrank; Vedran Stefanovic
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-03-29       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.