Literature DB >> 25846645

Knowledge, understanding, and uptake of noninvasive prenatal testing among Latina women.

Rachel Farrell1,2, Anne Hawkins1,3,4, Deborah Barragan3,5, Louanne Hudgins1,3, Joanne Taylor1,3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess Latina patient understanding of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and identify what factors influence uptake/refusal to NIPT to adapt counseling to the needs and interests of this population.
METHODS: Mixed-methods survey in English and Spanish administered to pregnant Latina patients throughout pregnancy.
RESULTS: Sixty-three women participated in our study (67% response rate); 34.9% chose to do NIPT, and 65.1% declined. Approximately half of participants (44%) had an NIPT knowledge score of ≤3 out of six total questions. Two of the most significant factors influencing uptake of NIPT were a higher reported educational level (p = 0.015) and a higher NIPT knowledge score (p = 0.014); 42.9% of participants knew that NIPT only screens for certain chromosomal conditions; 39% of women who declined NIPT would never consider NIPT in the future.
CONCLUSIONS: One-third of Latina women elected NIPT; a higher reported educational level and language were most predictive of this choice. Overall knowledge was significantly lower for women who declined NIPT. Lower knowledge may suggest that not all women are making informed decisions because of varying degrees of informed consent. Providing culturally tailored information can help women navigate the complexities of prenatal testing in order to make decisions most aligned with their values.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25846645     DOI: 10.1002/pd.4599

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prenat Diagn        ISSN: 0197-3851            Impact factor:   3.050


  14 in total

1.  Perspectives of Pregnant People and Clinicians on Noninvasive Prenatal Testing: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Meta-synthesis.

Authors:  Meredith Vanstone; Alexandra Cernat; Umair Majid; Forum Trivedi; Chanté De Freitas
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2019-02-19

2.  Video education about genetic privacy and patient perspectives about sharing prenatal genetic data: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Christian M Parobek; Margaret M Thorsen; Phinnara Has; Paula Lorenzi; Melissa A Clark; Melissa L Russo; Adam K Lewkowitz
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2022-03-26       Impact factor: 10.693

3.  Spanish- and English-Speaking Pregnant Women's Views on cfDNA and Other Prenatal Screening: Practical and Ethical Reflections.

Authors:  Erin Floyd; Megan A Allyse; Marsha Michie
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  NIPT and Informed Consent: an Assessment of Patient Understanding of a Negative NIPT Result.

Authors:  Julie L Piechan; Karrie A Hines; Daniel L Koller; Kristyne Stone; Kimberly Quaid; Wilfredo Torres-Martinez; Divya Wilson Mathews; Tatiana Foroud; Lola Cook
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-04-01       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Improving Patient Knowledge of Aneuploidy Testing Using an Educational Video: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Bethany M Mulla; Olivia H Chang; Anna M Modest; Michele R Hacker; Karen F Marchand; Karen E O'Brien
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 7.661

6.  Evaluation of preferences of women and healthcare professionals in Singapore for implementation of noninvasive prenatal testing for Down syndrome.

Authors:  Angela Natalie Barrett; Henna Vishal Advani; Lyn S Chitty; Lin Lin Su; Arijit Biswas; Wei Ching Tan; Melissa Hill; Mahesh Choolani
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 1.858

7.  Pregnant Hispanic women's views and knowledge of prenatal genetic testing.

Authors:  Robin L Page; Christina Murphey; Yahyahan Aras; Lei-Shih Chen; Ryan Loftin
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2021-01-26       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  A qualitative study looking at informed choice in the context of non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy.

Authors:  Celine Lewis; Melissa Hill; Lyn S Chitty
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2016-08-23       Impact factor: 3.050

9.  Sociodemographic and attitudinal predictors of simultaneous and redundant multiple marker and cell-free DNA screening among women aged ⩾35 years.

Authors:  A K Lewkowitz; A J Kaimal; K Thao; A O'Leary; O Nseyo; M Kuppermann
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2017-05-11       Impact factor: 2.521

10.  The clinical utility of DNA-based screening for fetal aneuploidy by primary obstetrical care providers in the general pregnancy population.

Authors:  Glenn E Palomaki; Edward M Kloza; Barbara M O'Brien; Elizabeth E Eklund; Geralyn M Lambert-Messerlian
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2017-01-12       Impact factor: 8.822

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.