Monica Pivetti1, Lorenzo Montali, Giorgia Simonetti. 1. Department of Psychological, Humanistic and Territorial Sciences, University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy. m.pivetti@unich.it
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study explores the underlying values and beliefs that guide women's reasoning on prenatal genetic test (PGT) uptake, as framed by their own words, during a group discussion, in a Catholic country such as Italy. METHODS: Women's reasoning was explored by means of five focus group consisting of seven pregnant women and 13 new mothers. RESULTS: The focus group material content was analysed using the Nudist software. The discourse around PGT was rooted into four frames of reference: The usefulness dimension was used to express the positions in favour of PGT, whereas morality, risk and trust were used to express negative evaluations on such a technology. Participants advocated for themselves the choice of being tested, besides giving some credit to the partner's opinion. Moreover, participants reported little knowledge on PGT. CONCLUSION: The research shed some light on the frames of reference used by participants to build their positions on PGT uptake, confirming the public's ability to translate scientific accounts into personally meaningful information. A more complete understanding of the reasons for decisions to test would help counsellors to better communicate with women and couples, and to better assist them to make a better informed testing decision.
OBJECTIVE: This study explores the underlying values and beliefs that guide women's reasoning on prenatal genetic test (PGT) uptake, as framed by their own words, during a group discussion, in a Catholic country such as Italy. METHODS:Women's reasoning was explored by means of five focus group consisting of seven pregnant women and 13 new mothers. RESULTS: The focus group material content was analysed using the Nudist software. The discourse around PGT was rooted into four frames of reference: The usefulness dimension was used to express the positions in favour of PGT, whereas morality, risk and trust were used to express negative evaluations on such a technology. Participants advocated for themselves the choice of being tested, besides giving some credit to the partner's opinion. Moreover, participants reported little knowledge on PGT. CONCLUSION: The research shed some light on the frames of reference used by participants to build their positions on PGT uptake, confirming the public's ability to translate scientific accounts into personally meaningful information. A more complete understanding of the reasons for decisions to test would help counsellors to better communicate with women and couples, and to better assist them to make a better informed testing decision.