Literature DB >> 25932463

"Don't Want No Risk and Don't Want No Problems": Public Understandings of the Risks and Benefits of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing in the United States.

Megan Allyse1, Lauren Carter Sayres2, Taylor Goodspeed3, Marsha Michie1, Mildred K Cho4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The recent availability of new non-invasive prenatal genetic tests for fetal aneuploidy has raised questions concerning whether and how these new tests will be integrated into prenatal medical care. Among the many factors to be considered are public understandings and preferences about prenatal testing mechanisms and the prospect of fetal aneuploidy.
METHODS: To address these issues, we conducted a nation-wide mixed-method survey of 2,960 adults in the United States to explore justifications for choices among prenatal testing mechanisms. Open responses were qualitatively coded and grouped by theme.
RESULTS: Respondents cited accuracy, followed by cost, as the most significant aspects of prenatal testing. Acceptance of testing was predicated on differing valuations of knowledge and on personal and religious beliefs. Trust in the medical establishment, attitudes towards risk, and beliefs about health and illness were also considered relevant.
CONCLUSIONS: Although a significant portion of the sample population valued the additional accuracy provided by the new non-invasive tests, they nevertheless expressed concerns over high costs. Furthermore, participants continued to express reservations about the value of prenatal genetic information per se, regardless of how it was obtained.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aneuploidy; Prenatal Screening; Prenatal Testing; Public Attitudes

Year:  2015        PMID: 25932463      PMCID: PMC4410992          DOI: 10.1080/23294515.2014.994722

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth        ISSN: 2329-4515


  71 in total

1.  Qualitative data analysis for health services research: developing taxonomy, themes, and theory.

Authors:  Elizabeth H Bradley; Leslie A Curry; Kelly J Devers
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Non-invasive prenatal testing: ethical issues explored.

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

3.  Genome-wide fetal aneuploidy detection by maternal plasma DNA sequencing.

Authors:  Diana W Bianchi; Lawrence D Platt; James D Goldberg; Alfred Z Abuhamad; Amy J Sehnert; Richard P Rava
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 7.661

4.  'Because of the risks': how US pregnant women account for refusing prenatal screening.

Authors:  S Markens; C H Browner; N Press
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 4.634

5.  Noninvasive prenatal diagnosis: pregnant women's interest and expected uptake.

Authors:  Reana Tischler; Louanne Hudgins; Yair J Blumenfeld; Henry T Greely; Kelly E Ormond
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2011-10-26       Impact factor: 3.050

6.  Ethnic differences in considerations whether or not to participate in prenatal screening for Down syndrome.

Authors:  Mirjam P Fransen; Hajo I J Wildschut; Ineke Vogel; Johan P Mackenbach; Eric A P Steegers; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 3.050

Review 7.  Enhancing informed choice to undergo health screening: a systematic review.

Authors:  Barbara Bowles Biesecker; Marc D Schwartz; Theresa M Marteau
Journal:  Am J Health Behav       Date:  2013-05

8.  NIPT in a clinical setting: an analysis of uptake in the first months of clinical availability.

Authors:  Joanne B Taylor; Valerie Y Chock; Louanne Hudgins
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-05-31       Impact factor: 2.537

9.  Public knowledge of benefits of breast and prostate cancer screening in Europe.

Authors:  Gerd Gigerenzer; Jutta Mata; Ronald Frank
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2009-08-11       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Incorporating DNA sequencing into current prenatal screening practice for Down's syndrome.

Authors:  Nicholas J Wald; Jonathan P Bestwick
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-03-20       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  8 in total

1.  Old Questions, New Paradigms: Ethical, Legal, and Social Complications of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing.

Authors:  Marsha Michie; Megan Allyse
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2015-01-01

Review 2.  Resistance to Change.

Authors:  Mark I Evans; David W Britt
Journal:  Reprod Sci       Date:  2022-07-07       Impact factor: 2.924

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.  Is preparation a good reason for prenatal genetic testing? Ethical and critical questions.

Authors:  Marsha Michie
Journal:  Birth Defects Res       Date:  2020-03-01       Impact factor: 2.344

5.  Considering medical risk information and communicating values: A mixed-method study of women's choice in prenatal testing.

Authors:  An Chen; Henni Tenhunen; Paulus Torkki; Seppo Heinonen; Paul Lillrank; Vedran Stefanovic
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-03-29       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Women Toward Prenatal Genetic Testing.

Authors:  Nour Abdo; Nadia Ibraheem; Nail Obeidat; Ashley Graboski-Bauer; Anwar Batieha; Nada Altamimi; Moawia Khatatbih
Journal:  Epigenet Insights       Date:  2018-12-04

7.  'Small cost to pay for peace of mind': Women's experiences with non-invasive prenatal testing.

Authors:  Hilary Bowman-Smart; Julian Savulescu; Cara Mand; Christopher Gyngell; Mark D Pertile; Sharon Lewis; Martin B Delatycki
Journal:  Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2019-02-06       Impact factor: 2.100

8.  The Knowledge, Attitude, Practices, and Satisfaction of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing among Chinese Pregnant Women under Different Payment Schemes: A Comparative Study.

Authors:  Wenjun Zhu; XiaoXiao Ling; Wenru Shang; Jiayan Huang
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-09-30       Impact factor: 3.390

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.