Cécile Muller1, Linda D Cameron2. 1. Public Health Genetics, Genetic Disorders, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Vic., Australia. 2. Psychological Sciences, School of Social Science, Humanities, and the Arts, University of California, Merced, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The technologies currently available to detect the presence of foetal genetic abnormalities are complex, and undergoing prenatal diagnostic testing can have wide-ranging repercussions. Before individuals can decide with certainty whether or not to take these tests, they first need to grasp the many psychosocial and clinical dimensions of prenatal genetic testing. OBJECTIVE: To test a model integrating key psychosocial and clinical factors as predictors of decisional conflict in decisions about whether or not to undergo prenatal genetic testing. METHOD: Adults (n = 457) read one of four hypothetical scenarios asking them to imagine expecting a child and considering the option of a prenatal test able to detect a genetic condition; age of condition onset (birth vs. adulthood) and its curability (no cure vs. curable) were manipulated. Participants completed measures of decisional conflict, perceived benefits from normal results, test response efficacy, condition coherence, child-related worry, perceived disagreement with the other parent's preference, motivation to comply with doctors' perceived preferences, and parity. RESULTS: Prenatal testing decisional conflict was positively predicted by perceiving normal results as beneficial, doubting the test's reliability, lacking understanding of the genetic condition, worrying about the health of the foetus, perceiving differences of opinion from partner/spouse, wanting to follow doctors' preferences, and being childless. DISCUSSION: These results, of growing relevance given the increasing availability of new technologies in pregnancy care, can inform communication strategies that facilitate couples' decision making. CONCLUSION: This study provides insights into factors that might complicate prenatal testing decision making.
BACKGROUND: The technologies currently available to detect the presence of foetal genetic abnormalities are complex, and undergoing prenatal diagnostic testing can have wide-ranging repercussions. Before individuals can decide with certainty whether or not to take these tests, they first need to grasp the many psychosocial and clinical dimensions of prenatal genetic testing. OBJECTIVE: To test a model integrating key psychosocial and clinical factors as predictors of decisional conflict in decisions about whether or not to undergo prenatal genetic testing. METHOD: Adults (n = 457) read one of four hypothetical scenarios asking them to imagine expecting a child and considering the option of a prenatal test able to detect a genetic condition; age of condition onset (birth vs. adulthood) and its curability (no cure vs. curable) were manipulated. Participants completed measures of decisional conflict, perceived benefits from normal results, test response efficacy, condition coherence, child-related worry, perceived disagreement with the other parent's preference, motivation to comply with doctors' perceived preferences, and parity. RESULTS: Prenatal testing decisional conflict was positively predicted by perceiving normal results as beneficial, doubting the test's reliability, lacking understanding of the genetic condition, worrying about the health of the foetus, perceiving differences of opinion from partner/spouse, wanting to follow doctors' preferences, and being childless. DISCUSSION: These results, of growing relevance given the increasing availability of new technologies in pregnancy care, can inform communication strategies that facilitate couples' decision making. CONCLUSION: This study provides insights into factors that might complicate prenatal testing decision making.
Authors: Antina de Jong; Wybo J Dondorp; Christine E M de Die-Smulders; Suzanne G M Frints; Guido M W R de Wert Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2009-12-02 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Joel E Pacyna; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Sarah M Jenkins; Erica J Sutton; Caroline Horrow; Iftikhar J Kullo; Richard R Sharp Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2018-12-22 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Sarah A Walser; Allison Werner-Lin; Amita Russell; Ronald J Wapner; Barbara A Bernhardt Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2016-03-04 Impact factor: 2.537