Literature DB >> 26141083

To Use or Not to Use: Male Partners' Perspectives on Decision Making About Prenatal Diagnosis.

R Kenen1, A C Smith, C Watkins, C Zuber-Pittore.   

Abstract

We conducted an exploratory, qualitative pilot study investigating the use of genetic counseling and prenatal genetic technologies between women and their male partners for two referral groups: pregnant women 35 years of age and over (AMA) at the time of delivery and pregnant women with an abnormal maternal serum triple screen (MSAFP3). The convenience sample consisted of 25 semistructured interviews and 50 observations of genetic counseling sessions. Male partners' styles of decision making and the way they viewed prenatal diagnosis decision making were examined. We defined three decision-making styles based on our interpretation of the data: (1) domain, (2) joint-delegated, and (3) saliency. The male partners also seemed to view prenatal diagnosis as either an information decision or an action decision and appeared to take a more active role in decision making when the decision was viewed as an action decision.

Entities:  

Year:  2000        PMID: 26141083     DOI: 10.1023/A:1009429106757

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


  10 in total

1.  Male partners' role in Latinas' amniocentesis decisions.

Authors:  Carole H Browner; H Mabel Preloran
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Nuance, complexity, and context: qualitative methods in genetic counseling research.

Authors:  Diane Beeson
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  "I can feel it -- my baby is healthy": women's experiences with prenatal diagnosis in Switzerland.

Authors:  Monika Leuzinger; Bigna Rambert
Journal:  Reprod Genet Eng       Date:  1988

4.  The imperative character of medical technology and the meaning of "anticipated decision regret".

Authors:  T Tymstra
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 2.188

5.  Chronic sorrow: A content analysis of parental differences.

Authors:  E F Hobdell; J A Deatrick
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango).

Authors:  C Charles; A Gafni; T Whelan
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 7.  Patients' health-care decision making: a framework for descriptive and experimental investigations.

Authors:  H A Llewellyn-Thomas
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1995 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  Couple agreement before and after genetic counseling.

Authors:  J R Sorenson; D C Wertz
Journal:  Am J Med Genet       Date:  1986-11

9.  Participants' reaction to amniocentesis and prenatal genetic studies.

Authors:  S C Finley; P D Varner; P C Vinson; W H Finley
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1977-11-28       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Anxiety engendered by amniocentesis.

Authors:  D Beeson; M S Golbus
Journal:  Birth Defects Orig Artic Ser       Date:  1979
  10 in total
  13 in total

1.  Models of genetic counseling and their effects on multicultural genetic counseling.

Authors:  Linwood J Lewis
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Longitudinal interviews of couples diagnosed with diminished ovarian reserve undergoing fragile X premutation testing.

Authors:  Lisa M Pastore; Logan B Karns; Karen Ventura; Myra L Clark; Richard H Steeves; Nancy Callanan
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-06-14       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  The Colored, Eco-Genetic Relationship Map (CEGRM): A Conceptual Approach and Tool for Genetic Counseling Research.

Authors:  R Kenen; J Peters
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Genetic testing likelihood: the impact of abortion views and quality of life information on women's decisions.

Authors:  Jessica L Wilson; Gail M Ferguson; Judith M Thorn
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2010-11-06       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  To Use or Not to Use: The Prenatal Genetic Technology/Worry Conundrum.

Authors:  R Kenen; A C Smith; C Watkins; C Zuber-Pittore
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Genetic Counselors' Experiences with Paternal Involvement in Prenatal Genetic Counseling Sessions: An Exploratory Investigation.

Authors:  Richard S Lafans; Patricia McCarthy Veach; Bonnie S LeRoy
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  A Qualitative Study to Explore the Views and Attitudes towards Prenatal Testing in Adults Who Have Muenke Syndrome and their Partners.

Authors:  Julie Phipps; Heather Skirton
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-03-22       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  Men's Knowledge About Maternal Serum Screening for Down Syndrome and their Attitude Towards Amniocentesis.

Authors:  Bojana Brajenović-Milić; Tamara Martinac Dorčić
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-06-14       Impact factor: 2.537

9.  Managing Couple Conflict During Prenatal Counseling Sessions: An Investigation of Genetic Counselor Experiences and Perceptions.

Authors:  Kara Schoeffel; Patricia McCarthy Veach; Karol Rubin; Bonnie LeRoy
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2018-03-22       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 10.  A systematic review of decision support needs of parents making child health decisions.

Authors:  Cath Jackson; Francine M Cheater; Innes Reid
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 3.377

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.