Literature DB >> 25224777

Influence of anchoring on miscarriage risk perception associated with amniocentesis.

Regina Nuccio1, S Shahrukh Hashmi, Joan Mastrobattista, Sarah Jane Noblin, Jerrie Refuerzo, Janice L Smith, Claire N Singletary.   

Abstract

One factor women consider when deciding whether to pursue amniocentesis is the risk of miscarriage. People use mechanisms like anchoring, or the prior belief regarding the magnitude of risk, as a frame of reference for new information. This study aimed to determine a woman's perception of miscarriage risk associated with amniocentesis before and after genetic counseling and to determine what factors anchor a woman's perception of miscarriage risk. One hundred thirteen women being seen for prenatal genetic counseling and possible amniocentesis at six Houston clinics participated in the two-part anonymous survey. While most women (56.7 %) perceived the risk as low or average pre-counseling and indicated the numeric risk of amniocentesis as <1 %, significantly more patients (73 %) correctly identified the numeric risk as <1 % post-counseling (p < 0.0001). However, the majority of patients' qualitative risk perception did not change after the genetic counseling session (60 %). Those who changed their feeling about the risk after counseling showed a decreased perception of the risk (p < 0.0001). Participants who elected amniocentesis had a significantly lower perception of the risk (p = 0.017) whereas those who declined amniocentesis were more likely to view the risk as high (p = 0.004). The only two anchoring factors that had an effect were having a friend or relative with a personal or family history of a genetic disorder (p = 0.001) and having a child already (p = 0.038); both were associated with a lower risk perception. The lack of significant factors may reflect the uniqueness of each patient's risk assessment framework and reinforces the importance of genetic counseling to elucidate individual concerns, particularly as non-invasive prenatal testing becomes more widely available and further complicates the prenatal testing landscape.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25224777     DOI: 10.1007/s10897-014-9761-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Genet Couns        ISSN: 1059-7700            Impact factor:   2.537


  14 in total

Review 1.  Re-conceptualizing risk in genetic counseling: implications for clinical practice.

Authors:  Jehannine C Austin
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2010-01-30       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 2.  Decisional needs assessment regarding Down syndrome prenatal testing: a systematic review of the perceptions of women, their partners and health professionals.

Authors:  Sylvie St-Jacques; Sonya Grenier; Marc Charland; Jean-Claude Forest; François Rousseau; France Légaré
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.050

3.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.

Authors:  A Tversky; D Kahneman
Journal:  Science       Date:  1974-09-27       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Practice-based competencies for accreditation of and training in graduate programs in genetic counseling.

Authors:  B A Fine; D L Baker; M B Fiddler
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Outcome of pregnancy after amniocentesis for chromosome analysis.

Authors:  J Philip; J Bang
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1978-10-28

6.  The impact of ethical beliefs on decisions about prenatal screening tests: searching for justification.

Authors:  Elisa García; Danielle R M Timmermans; Evert van Leeuwen
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2007-11-08       Impact factor: 4.634

7.  Pregnancy loss rates after midtrimester amniocentesis.

Authors:  Keith A Eddleman; Fergal D Malone; Lisa Sullivan; Kim Dukes; Richard L Berkowitz; Yara Kharbutli; T Flint Porter; David A Luthy; Christine H Comstock; George R Saade; Susan Klugman; Lorraine Dugoff; Sabrina D Craigo; Ilan E Timor-Tritsch; Stephen R Carr; Honor M Wolfe; Mary E D'Alton
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 7.661

8.  Justification pressure in risky decision making: search for risk defusing operators.

Authors:  Oswald Huber; Arlette S Bär; Odilo W Huber
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  2008-11-04

9.  Risks of midtrimester amniocentesis; assessment in 3000 pregnancies.

Authors:  N J Leschot; M Verjaal; P E Treffers
Journal:  Br J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1985-08

10.  Prenatal diagnosis of genetic disease in Canada: report of a collaborative study.

Authors:  N E Simpson; L Dallaire; J R Miller; L Siminovich; J L Hamerton; J Miller; C McKeen
Journal:  Can Med Assoc J       Date:  1976-10-23       Impact factor: 8.262

View more
  2 in total

1.  Referencing BRCA in hereditary cancer risk discussions: In search of an anchor in a sea of uncertainty.

Authors:  Margaret Waltz; Anya E R Prince; Julianne M O'Daniel; Ann Katherine M Foreman; Bradford C Powell; Jonathan S Berg
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2020-01-22       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Cognitive Biases of Consumers' Risk Perception of Foodborne Diseases in China: Examining Anchoring Effect.

Authors:  Lijie Shan; Shusai Wang; Linhai Wu; Fu-Sheng Tsai
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2019-06-27       Impact factor: 3.390

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.