Literature DB >> 22445765

The decision-making process of genetically at-risk couples considering preimplantation genetic diagnosis: initial findings from a grounded theory study.

Patricia E Hershberger1, Agatha M Gallo, Karen Kavanaugh, Ellen Olshansky, Alan Schwartz, Ilan Tur-Kaspa.   

Abstract

Exponential growth in genomics has led to public and private initiatives worldwide that have dramatically increased the number of procreative couples who are aware of their ability to transmit genetic disorders to their future children. Understanding how couples process the meaning of being genetically at-risk for their procreative life lags far behind the advances in genomic and reproductive sciences. Moreover, society, policy makers, and clinicians are not aware of the experiences and nuances involved when modern couples are faced with using Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD). The purpose of this study was to discover the decision-making process of genetically at-risk couples as they decide whether to use PGD to prevent the transmission of known single-gene or sex-linked genetic disorders to their children. A qualitative, grounded theory design guided the study in which 22 couples (44 individual partners) from the USA, who were actively considering PGD, participated. Couples were recruited from June 2009 to May 2010 from the Internet and from a large PGD center and a patient newsletter. In-depth semi-structured interviews were completed with each individual partner within the couple dyad, separate from their respective partner. We discovered that couples move through four phases (Identify, Contemplate, Resolve, Engage) of a complex, dynamic, and iterative decision-making process where multiple, sequential decisions are made. In the Identify phase, couples acknowledge the meaning of their at-risk status. Parenthood and reproductive options are explored in the Contemplate phase, where 41% of couples remained for up to 36 months before moving into the Resolve phase. In Resolve, one of three decisions about PGD use is reached, including: Accepting, Declining, or Oscillating. Actualizing decisions occur in the Engage phase. Awareness of the decision-making process among genetically at-risk couples provides foundational work for understanding critical processes and aids in identifying important gaps for intervention and future research.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22445765      PMCID: PMC3328546          DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.02.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  41 in total

1.  Reasons for discontinuation of IVF treatment: a questionnaire study.

Authors:  M Rajkhowa; A McConnell; G E Thomas
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2005-11-03       Impact factor: 6.918

2.  A practical guide to the e-mail interview.

Authors:  Nigel Hunt; Sue McHale
Journal:  Qual Health Res       Date:  2007-12

3.  The relation of psychological stress to pregnancy outcome among women undergoing in-vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

Authors:  Kleanthi Gourounti; Fotios Anagnostopoulos; Grigorios Vaslamatzis
Journal:  Women Health       Date:  2011-06-21

4.  Development of an informational web site for recruiting research participants: process, implementation, and evaluation.

Authors:  Patricia E Hershberger; Karen Kavanaugh; Rebekah Hamilton; Susan C Klock; Lisa Merry; Ellen Olshansky; Penny F Pierce
Journal:  Comput Inform Nurs       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 1.985

5.  A qualitative study of women's decision-making at the end of IVF treatment.

Authors:  V L Peddie; E van Teijlingen; S Bhattacharya
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2005-03-31       Impact factor: 6.918

6.  Enhancing the rigor of grounded theory: incorporating reflexivity and relationality.

Authors:  W A Hall; P Callery
Journal:  Qual Health Res       Date:  2001-03

7.  Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: choosing the "good enough" child.

Authors:  Helen Watt
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2004-03

8.  Over a decade of experience with preimplantation genetic diagnosis: a multicenter report.

Authors:  Yury Verlinsky; Jacques Cohen; Santiago Munne; Luca Gianaroli; Joe Leigh Simpson; Anna Pia Ferraretti; Anver Kuliev
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 7.329

9.  Markov decision processes: a tool for sequential decision making under uncertainty.

Authors:  Oguzhan Alagoz; Heather Hsu; Andrew J Schaefer; Mark S Roberts
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2009-12-31       Impact factor: 2.583

10.  Anticipating issues related to increasing preimplantation genetic diagnosis use: a research agenda.

Authors:  Robert Klitzman; Paul S Appelbaum; Wendy Chung; Mark Sauer
Journal:  Reprod Biomed Online       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 3.828

View more
  15 in total

1.  The decision-making process of young adult women with cancer who considered fertility cryopreservation.

Authors:  Patricia E Hershberger; Lorna Finnegan; Penny F Pierce; Bert Scoccia
Journal:  J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs       Date:  2012-11-20

Review 2.  Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for inherited neurological disorders.

Authors:  Ilan Tur-Kaspa; Roohi Jeelani; P Murali Doraiswamy
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurol       Date:  2014-05-27       Impact factor: 42.937

3.  Perception of young adults with sickle cell disease or sickle cell trait about participation in the CHOICES randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Patricia E Hershberger; Agatha M Gallo; Robert Molokie; Alexis A Thompson; Marie L Suarez; Yingwei Yao; Diana J Wilkie
Journal:  J Adv Nurs       Date:  2015-06-15       Impact factor: 3.187

4.  The Impact of Fabry Disease on Reproductive Fitness.

Authors:  Dawn A Laney; Virginia Clarke; Allison Foley; Eric W Hall; Scott E Gillespie; Myrl Holida; Morgan Simmons; Alexandrea Wadley
Journal:  JIMD Rep       Date:  2017-03-22

5.  Pre-implantation genetic testing: decisional factors to accept or decline among in vitro fertilization patients.

Authors:  Brandy Lamb; Erin Johnson; Leslie Francis; Melinda Fagan; Naomi Riches; Isabella Canada; Alena Wilson; Amber Mathiesen; Maya Sabatello; Shawn Gurtcheff; Erica Johnstone; Erin Rothwell
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2018-08-03       Impact factor: 3.412

6.  Toward theoretical understanding of the fertility preservation decision-making process: examining information processing among young women with cancer.

Authors:  Patricia E Hershberger; Lorna Finnegan; Susan Altfeld; Sara Lake; Jennifer Hirshfeld-Cytron
Journal:  Res Theory Nurs Pract       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 0.688

7.  Reasons Why Young Women Accept or Decline Fertility Preservation After Cancer Diagnosis.

Authors:  Patricia E Hershberger; Heather Sipsma; Lorna Finnegan; Jennifer Hirshfeld-Cytron
Journal:  J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs       Date:  2015-11-25

8.  Comparing appropriateness and equivalence of email interviews to phone interviews in qualitative research on reproductive decisions.

Authors:  Patricia E Hershberger; Karen Kavanaugh
Journal:  Appl Nurs Res       Date:  2017-07-31       Impact factor: 2.257

9.  A qualitative inquiry of the financial concerns of couples opting to use preimplantation genetic diagnosis to prevent the transmission of known genetic disorders.

Authors:  Kathryn T Drazba; Michele A Kelley; Patricia E Hershberger
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-08-16       Impact factor: 2.537

10.  Current issues in medically assisted reproduction and genetics in Europe: research, clinical practice, ethics, legal issues and policy. European Society of Human Genetics and European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.

Authors:  Joyce C Harper; Joep Geraedts; Pascal Borry; Martina C Cornel; Wybo Dondorp; Luca Gianaroli; Gary Harton; Tanya Milachich; Helena Kääriäinen; Inge Liebaers; Michael Morris; Jorge Sequeiros; Karen Sermon; Françoise Shenfield; Heather Skirton; Sirpa Soini; Claudia Spits; Anna Veiga; Joris Robert Vermeesch; Stéphane Viville; Guido de Wert; Milan Macek
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 4.246

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.