Literature DB >> 22935718

Women's and health professionals' preferences for prenatal tests for Down syndrome: a discrete choice experiment to contrast noninvasive prenatal diagnosis with current invasive tests.

Melissa Hill1, Jane Fisher, Lyn S Chitty, Stephen Morris.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the preferences of women and health professionals for key attributes of noninvasive prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome relative to current invasive tests.
METHODS: A questionnaire incorporating a discrete choice experiment was used to obtain participants' stated preference for diagnostic tests that varied according to four attributes: accuracy, time of test, risk of miscarriage, and provision of information about Down syndrome only or Down syndrome and other conditions. Women and health professionals were recruited from five maternity services in England and a patient support group.
RESULTS: Questionnaires from 335 women and 181 health professionals were analyzed. Safe tests, conducted early in pregnancy, with high accuracy and information about Down syndrome and other conditions were preferred. The key attribute affecting women's preferences for testing was no risk of miscarriage, whereas for health professionals it was accuracy.
CONCLUSIONS: Policies for implementing noninvasive prenatal diagnosis must consider the differences between women's and health professionals' preferences to ensure the needs of all stakeholders are met. Women's strong preference for tests with no risk of miscarriage demonstrates that consideration for safety of the fetus is paramount in decision making. Effective pretest counseling is therefore essential to ensure women understand the possible implications of results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22935718     DOI: 10.1038/gim.2012.68

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


  36 in total

Review 1.  A descriptive review on methods to prioritize outcomes in a health care context.

Authors:  Inger M Janssen; Ansgar Gerhardus; Milly A Schröer-Günther; Fülöp Scheibler
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-08-25       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  Will the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing for Down's syndrome undermine informed choice?

Authors:  Caroline Silcock; Lih-Mei Liao; Melissa Hill; Lyn S Chitty
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-02-20       Impact factor: 3.377

3.  Non-invasive prenatal testing: UK genetic counselors' experiences and perspectives.

Authors:  Elizabeth Alexander; Susan Kelly; Lauren Kerzin-Storrar
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-10-15       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  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

5.  The Impact of Reproductive Issues on Preferences of Women with Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis for Disease-Modifying Treatments.

Authors:  Edward J D Webb; David Meads; Ieva Eskytė; Helen L Ford; Hilary L Bekker; Jeremy Chataway; George Pepper; Joachim Marti; Yasmina Okan; Sue H Pavitt; Klaus Schmierer; Ana Manzano
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 3.883

6.  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

Review 7.  Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Michael D Clark; Domino Determann; Stavros Petrou; Domenico Moro; Esther W de Bekker-Grob
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  What women want: lead considerations for current and future applications of noninvasive prenatal testing in prenatal care.

Authors:  Ruth M Farrell; Patricia K Agatisa; Benjamin Nutter
Journal:  Birth       Date:  2014-05-14       Impact factor: 3.689

9.  Attitudes of pregnant women and male partners towards non-invasive prenatal testing and widening the scope of prenatal screening.

Authors:  Rachèl V van Schendel; Johanna H Kleinveld; Wybo J Dondorp; Eva Pajkrt; Danielle R M Timmermans; Kim C A Holtkamp; Margreet Karsten; Anne L Vlietstra; Augusta M A Lachmeijer; Lidewij Henneman
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-03-19       Impact factor: 4.246

10.  Preferences for prenatal tests for Down syndrome: an international comparison of the views of pregnant women and health professionals.

Authors:  Melissa Hill; Jo-Ann Johnson; Sylvie Langlois; Hyun Lee; Stephanie Winsor; Brigid Dineley; Marisa Horniachek; Faustina Lalatta; Luisa Ronzoni; Angela N Barrett; Henna V Advani; Mahesh Choolani; Ron Rabinowitz; Eva Pajkrt; Rachèl V van Schendel; Lidewij Henneman; Wieke Rommers; Caterina M Bilardo; Paula Rendeiro; Maria João Ribeiro; José Rocha; Ida Charlotte Bay Lund; Olav B Petersen; Naja Becher; Ida Vogel; Vigdis Stefánsdottir; Sigrun Ingvarsdottir; Helga Gottfredsdottir; Stephen Morris; Lyn S Chitty
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-11-18       Impact factor: 4.246

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.