Literature DB >> 22432488

Decision making following a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome: an integrative review.

Hyunkyung Choi1, Marcia Van Riper, Suzanne Thoyre.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Prenatal screening for Down syndrome (DS) is a routine part of prenatal care in many countries, and there is growing interest in the choices women make following a prenatal diagnosis of DS. This review describes what is known about actual and hypothetical decision making following a prenatal diagnosis of DS and adds understanding about the factors that influence women's decision making.
METHODS: A search of empirical studies was conducted through electronic databases, major journals, and reference lists that were published in English between January 1999 and September 2010. Inclusion criteria were that the research explored attitudes toward continuation of pregnancy or induced abortion for DS and included at least 1 variable that explored factors influencing women's decision making following a prenatal diagnosis of DS. Studies that did not specify DS, unpublished manuscripts, review articles, and book chapters were excluded.
RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. The decision to undergo an induced abortion varied depending on whether participants were prospective parents recruited from the general population (23%-33% would terminate), pregnant women at increased risk for having a child with DS (46%-86% would terminate), or women who received a positive diagnosis of DS during the prenatal period (89%-97% terminated). Multiple factors influence women's decision making following a diagnosis of DS, including demographic factors such as religion, maternal age, gestational age, number of existing children, and history of induced abortion. Psychosocial factors including perceived parenting burden/reward, quality of life for a child with DS, attitudes toward and comfort with individuals with disabilities, and support from others also are important influences. DISCUSSION: Multiple factors influence the decisions pregnant women make following the diagnosis of fetal DS. Therefore, it is critical that health care providers who work with pregnant women are aware of these factors.
© 2012 by the American College of Nurse-Midwives.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22432488     DOI: 10.1111/j.1542-2011.2011.00109.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Midwifery Womens Health        ISSN: 1526-9523            Impact factor:   2.388


  12 in total

1.  Variables influencing pregnancy termination following prenatal diagnosis of fetal chromosome abnormalities.

Authors:  Anne Hawkins; Ana Stenzel; Joanne Taylor; Valerie Y Chock; Louanne Hudgins
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-09-23       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 2.  Genomics-based non-invasive prenatal testing for detection of fetal chromosomal aneuploidy in pregnant women.

Authors:  Mylène Badeau; Carmen Lindsay; Jonatan Blais; Leon Nshimyumukiza; Yemisi Takwoingi; Sylvie Langlois; France Légaré; Yves Giguère; Alexis F Turgeon; William Witteman; François Rousseau
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-11-10

3.  A Hierarchical Bayes Approach to Modeling Heterogeneity in Discrete Choice Experiments: An Application to Public Preferences for Prenatal Screening.

Authors:  Tima Mohammadi; Wei Zhang; Julie Sou; Sylvie Langlois; Sarah Munro; Aslam H Anis
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  Exploring the Issues Surrounding Clinical Exome Sequencing in the Prenatal Setting.

Authors:  Swetha Narayanan; Bruce Blumberg; Marla L Clayman; Vivian Pan; Catherine Wicklund
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2018-03-10       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Demographic and experiential correlates of public attitudes towards cell-free fetal DNA screening.

Authors:  Lauren C Sayres; Megan Allyse; Taylor A Goodspeed; Mildred K Cho
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-04-09       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Epistemic Virtue, Prospective Parents and Disability Abortion.

Authors:  James B Gould
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 1.352

7.  Introducing the non-invasive prenatal test for trisomy 21 in Belgium: a cost-consequences analysis.

Authors:  Mattias Neyt; Frank Hulstaert; Wilfried Gyselaers
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-11-07       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  A qualitative study looking at informed choice in the context of non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy.

Authors:  Celine Lewis; Melissa Hill; Lyn S Chitty
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2016-08-23       Impact factor: 3.050

9.  Pregnancy Outcome following Prenatal Diagnosis of Chromosomal Anomaly: A Record Linkage Study of 26,261 Pregnancies.

Authors:  Myrthe Jacobs; Sally-Ann Cooper; Ruth McGowan; Scott M Nelson; Jill P Pell
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Pregnant women's attitudes and decision-making regarding prenatal Down syndrome screening and diagnosis: scale development and validation.

Authors:  Wei-Hsiang Huang; Shu-Fang Shih; Chen-Li Lin; Chieh-Hsing Liu
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2020-07-14       Impact factor: 3.007

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.