Literature DB >> 24481564

Trait anxiety, information modality, and responses to communications about prenatal genetic testing.

Cécile Muller1, Linda D Cameron.   

Abstract

Decisions to undergo invasive prenatal diagnostic procedures can be anxiety provoking. Individuals receive information about these procedures in one of three modalities: written text, audio (verbal description), or video. We examined whether modality influences emotional responses and testing decisions, and whether trait anxiety, a disposition linked with heightened sensitivity to threatening information, moderates these effects. New Zealand adults (N = 176) completed a trait anxiety measure before random allocation to view a text, audio, or video message about amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling. Participants completed measures of child related worry, anticipated emotional distress, anticipated coping efficacy, perceived likelihood of miscarriage, and testing interest. High-anxious individuals reported greater distress and lower coping efficacy in response to the video message compared to the audio message. They also reported greater miscarriage likelihood in response to the video message compared to the text message. These findings suggest that use of video, assumed to be most informative for educating patients, could induce greater distress about prenatal testing in individuals prone to anxiety.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24481564     DOI: 10.1007/s10865-014-9555-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Behav Med        ISSN: 0160-7715


  35 in total

1.  Knowledge retention from preoperative patient information.

Authors:  Cindy Stern; Craig Lockwood
Journal:  Int J Evid Based Healthc       Date:  2005-04

2.  Impact of genetic risk information and type of disease on perceived risk, anticipated affect, and expected consequences of genetic tests.

Authors:  Linda D Cameron; Kerry A Sherman; Theresa M Marteau; Paul M Brown
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 4.267

3.  Communication strategies for enhancing understanding of the behavioral implications of genetic and biomarker tests for disease risk: the role of coherence.

Authors:  Linda D Cameron; Theresa M Marteau; Paul M Brown; William M P Klein; Kerry A Sherman
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2011-06-23

4.  Experimental personality designs: analyzing categorical by continuous variable interactions.

Authors:  S G West; L S Aiken; J L Krull
Journal:  J Pers       Date:  1996-03

5.  Predictive validity of the Motivation To Stop Scale (MTSS): a single-item measure of motivation to stop smoking.

Authors:  D Kotz; J Brown; R West
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2012-09-01       Impact factor: 4.492

6.  Unrealistic optimism in early-phase oncology trials.

Authors:  Lynn A Jansen; Paul S Appelbaum; William M P Klein; Neil D Weinstein; William Cook; Jessica S Fogel; Daniel P Sulmasy
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2011 Jan-Feb

7.  Non-invasive prenatal assessment of trisomy 21 by multiplexed maternal plasma DNA sequencing: large scale validity study.

Authors:  Rossa W K Chiu; Ranjit Akolekar; Yama W L Zheng; Tak Y Leung; Hao Sun; K C Allen Chan; Fiona M F Lun; Attie T J I Go; Elizabeth T Lau; William W K To; Wing C Leung; Rebecca Y K Tang; Sidney K C Au-Yeung; Helena Lam; Yu Y Kung; Xiuqing Zhang; John M G van Vugt; Ryoko Minekawa; Mary H Y Tang; Jun Wang; Cees B M Oudejans; Tze K Lau; Kypros H Nicolaides; Y M Dennis Lo
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2011-01-11

8.  Information preferences of high literacy pregnant women regarding informed consent models for genetic carrier screening.

Authors:  K E Ormond; S Banuvar; A Daly; M Iris; J Minogue; S Elias
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2008-11-14

9.  Rethinking autonomy in the context of prenatal screening decision-making.

Authors:  Elisa García; Danielle R M Timmermans; Evert van Leeuwen
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 3.050

10.  Development and pilot testing of two decision aids for individuals considering genetic testing for cancer risk.

Authors:  Claire E Wakefield; Bettina Meiser; Judi Homewood; Michelle Peate; Judy Kirk; Beverley Warner; Elizabeth Lobb; Clara Gaff; Kathy Tucker
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-02-23       Impact factor: 2.717

View more
  5 in total

1.  It's complicated - Factors predicting decisional conflict in prenatal diagnostic testing.

Authors:  Cécile Muller; Linda D Cameron
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2015-04-13       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  The role of current affect, anticipated affect and spontaneous self-affirmation in decisions to receive self-threatening genetic risk information.

Authors:  Rebecca A Ferrer; Jennifer M Taber; William M P Klein; Peter R Harris; Katie L Lewis; Leslie G Biesecker
Journal:  Cogn Emot       Date:  2014-12-08

3.  Offering pregnant women different levels of genetic information from prenatal chromosome microarray: a prospective study.

Authors:  Jane L Halliday; Cecile Muller; Taryn Charles; Fiona Norris; Joanne Kennedy; Sharon Lewis; Bettina Meiser; Susan Donath; Zornitza Stark; George McGillivray; Melody Menezes; Sian K Smith; Della Forster; Susan Walker; Mark Pertile; David J Amor
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-02-06       Impact factor: 4.246

4.  Attitude, knowledge and informed choice towards prenatal screening for Down Syndrome: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Melania Elena Pop-Tudose; Dana Popescu-Spineni; Petru Armean; Ioan Victor Pop
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2018-11-12       Impact factor: 3.007

5.  Choosing between Higher and Lower Resolution Microarrays: do Pregnant Women Have Sufficient Knowledge to Make Informed Choices Consistent with their Attitude?

Authors:  S L van der Steen; E M Bunnik; M G Polak; K E M Diderich; J Verhagen-Visser; L C P Govaerts; M Joosten; M F C M Knapen; A T J I Go; D Van Opstal; M I Srebniak; R J H Galjaard; A Tibben; S R Riedijk
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-07-04       Impact factor: 2.537

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.