Literature DB >> 23341678

Maternal age-based prenatal screening for chromosomal disorders: attitudes of women and health care providers toward changes.

June C Carroll1, Andrea Rideout, Brenda J Wilson, Judith Allanson, Sean Blaine, Mary Jane Esplen, Sandra Farrell, Gail E Graham, Jennifer MacKenzie, Wendy S Meschino, Preeti Prakash, Cheryl Shuman, Sherry Taylor, Stasey Tobin.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To explore views of women and health care providers (HCPs) about the changing recommendations regarding maternal age-based prenatal screening.
DESIGN: Mixed-methods design.
SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: A sample of women who had given birth within the previous 2 years and who had attended a family medicine centre, midwifery practice, or baby and mother wellness program (n = 42); and a random sample of family physicians (n = 1600), and all Ontario obstetricians (n = 694) and midwives (n = 334) who provided prenatal care.
METHODS: We used focus groups (FGs) to explore women's views. Content analysis was used to uncover themes and delineate meaning. To explore HCPs' views, we conducted a cross-sectional self-completion survey. MAIN
FINDINGS: All FG participants (42 women in 6 FGs) expressed the importance of individual choice of prenatal screening modality, regardless of age. They described their perception that society considers women older than 35 to be at high obstetric risk and raised concerns that change in the maternal age-related screening policy would require education. The HCP survey response rate was 40%. Results showed 24% of HCPs agreed that women of any age should be eligible for invasive diagnostic testing regardless of prenatal screening results; 15% agreed that the age for diagnostic testing should be increased to 40 years, 14% agreed that diagnostic testing should be reserved for women with positive prenatal screening results, and 45% agreed that prenatal screening should remain unchanged.
CONCLUSION: Maternity care organizations have recommended that maternal age-based prenatal screening is no longer appropriate. Informed choice is of paramount importance to women and should be part of any change. Health care providers need to be engaged in and educated about any change to screening guidelines to offer women informed choices.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23341678      PMCID: PMC3555677     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can Fam Physician        ISSN: 0008-350X            Impact factor:   3.275


  28 in total

1.  Factors influencing participation in obstetrics by obstetrician-gynecologists.

Authors:  Benjamin T B Chan; Janice Willett
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 7.661

2.  Preferences of women facing a prenatal diagnostic choice: long-term outcomes matter most.

Authors:  M Kuppermann; D Feeny; E Gates; S F Posner; B Blumberg; A E Washington
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 3.050

3.  Preference assessment of prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome: is 35 years a rational cutoff?

Authors:  W A Grobman; S L Dooley; E E Welshman; E Pergament; E A Calhoun
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.050

4.  Prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy in singleton pregnancies.

Authors:  David Chitayat; Sylvie Langlois; R Douglas Wilson
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol Can       Date:  2011-07

5.  A decision aid for women considering hormone therapy after menopause: decision support framework and evaluation.

Authors:  A M O'Connor; P Tugwell; G A Wells; T Elmslie; E Jolly; G Hollingworth; R McPherson; H Bunn; I Graham; E Drake
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  1998-03

6.  Women's experience of maternal serum screening.

Authors:  J C Carroll; J B Brown; A J Reid; P Pugh
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 3.275

7.  How do women of diverse backgrounds value prenatal testing outcomes?

Authors:  Miriam Kuppermann; Robert F Nease; Elena Gates; Lee A Learman; Bruce Blumberg; Virginia Gildengorin; A Eugene Washington
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.050

8.  Cost utility of prenatal diagnosis and the risk-based threshold.

Authors:  Ryan A Harris; A Eugene Washington; Robert F Nease; Miriam Kuppermann
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2004-01-24       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Health-related quality-of-life assessment of prenatal diagnosis: chorionic villi sampling and amniocentesis.

Authors:  David Feeny; Marie Townsend; William Furlong; Darrell J Tomkins; Gail Erlick Robinson; George W Torrance; Patrick T Mohide; Qinan Wang
Journal:  Genet Test       Date:  2002

Review 10.  Who should be offered prenatal diagnosis? The 35-year-old question.

Authors:  M Kuppermann; J D Goldberg; R F Nease; A E Washington
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 9.308

View more
  2 in total

1.  Karyotyping and Chromosomal Microarray Analysis in Women Requesting Amniocentesis for Isolated Sonographic Soft Markers or Advanced Maternal Age.

Authors:  Panagiota Tzela; Nikolaos Antonakopoulos; Panagiotis Anastasopoulos; Kleanthi Gourounti
Journal:  Acta Inform Med       Date:  2021-12

2.  Facilitating autonomous, confident and satisfying choices: a mixed-method study of women's choice-making in prenatal screening for common aneuploidies.

Authors:  An Chen; Henni Tenhunen; Paulus Torkki; Antti Peltokorpi; Seppo Heinonen; Paul Lillrank; Vedran Stefanovic
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2018-05-02       Impact factor: 3.007

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.