Literature DB >> 26940446

"Something Extra on Chromosome 5": Parents' Understanding of Positive Prenatal Chromosomal Microarray Analysis (CMA) Results.

Sarah A Walser1,2, Allison Werner-Lin3, Amita Russell4, Ronald J Wapner4, Barbara A Bernhardt5.   

Abstract

This study aims to explore how couples' understanding of the nature and consequences of positive prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) results impacts decision-making and concern about pregnancy. We interviewed 28 women and 12 male partners after receiving positive results and analyzed the transcripts to assess their understanding and level of concern about the expected clinical implications of results. Participant descriptions were compared to the original laboratory interpretation. When diagnosed prenatally, couples' understanding of the nature and consequences of copy number variants (CNVs) impacts decision-making and concern. Findings suggest women, but less so partners, generally understand the nature and clinical implications of prenatal CMA results. Couples feel reassured, perhaps sometimes falsely so, when a CNV is inherited from a "normal" parent and experience considerable uncertainty when a CNV is de novo, frequently precipitating a search for additional information and guidance. Five factors influenced participants' concern including: the pattern of inheritance, type of possible phenotypic involvement, perceived manageability of outcomes, availability and strength of evidence about outcomes associated with the CNV, and provider messages about continuing the pregnancy. A good understanding of results is vital as couples decide whether or not to continue with their pregnancy and seek additional information to assist in pregnancy decision-making.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Copy number variant; Genetic counseling; Microarray analysis; Prenatal testing; Understanding

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26940446      PMCID: PMC5011030          DOI: 10.1007/s10897-016-9943-z

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


  40 in total

1.  Educating underserved Latino communities about family health history using lay health advisors.

Authors:  K A Kaphingst; C R Lachance; A Gepp; L Hoyt D'Anna; B Rios-Ellis
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2009-12-29       Impact factor: 2.000

2.  Clinical research in low-literacy populations: using teach-back to assess comprehension of informed consent and privacy information.

Authors:  Sunil Kripalani; Rachel Bengtzen; Laura E Henderson; Terry A Jacobson
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2008 Mar-Apr

3.  Parents' perceptions of the usefulness of chromosomal microarray analysis for children with autism spectrum disorders.

Authors:  Marian Reiff; Ellen Giarelli; Barbara A Bernhardt; Ebony Easley; Nancy B Spinner; Pamela L Sankar; Surabhi Mulchandani
Journal:  J Autism Dev Disord       Date:  2015-10

4.  How do prospective parents prefer to receive information about prenatal screening and diagnostic testing?

Authors:  A M Willis; S K Smith; B Meiser; C Muller; S Lewis; J Halliday
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2014-09-25       Impact factor: 3.050

5.  Parental expression is overvalued in the interpretation of rare inherited variants.

Authors:  Gregory Costain
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-04-23       Impact factor: 4.246

6.  Understanding of BRCA1/2 genetic tests results: the importance of objective and subjective numeracy.

Authors:  Yaniv Hanoch; Talya Miron-Shatz; Jonathan J Rolison; Elissa Ozanne
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2014-04-14       Impact factor: 3.894

7.  Is "teach-back" associated with knowledge retention and hospital readmission in hospitalized heart failure patients?

Authors:  Matthew White; Roxanne Garbez; Maureen Carroll; Eileen Brinker; Jill Howie-Esquivel
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Nurs       Date:  2013 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.083

Review 8.  The 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 microdeletion syndrome: a review.

Authors:  Devin M Cox; Merlin G Butler
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2015-02-13       Impact factor: 5.923

9.  "What does it mean?": uncertainties in understanding results of chromosomal microarray testing.

Authors:  Marian Reiff; Barbara A Bernhardt; Surabhi Mulchandani; Danielle Soucier; Diana Cornell; Reed E Pyeritz; Nancy B Spinner
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-01-05       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Women's Attitudes Regarding Prenatal Testing for a Range of Congenital Disorders of Varying Severity.

Authors:  Mary E Norton; Sanae Nakagawa; Miriam Kuppermann
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2014-01-21       Impact factor: 4.241

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Balancing Genetics (Science) and Counseling (Art) in Prenatal Chromosomal Microarray Testing.

Authors:  Allison Werner-Lin; Judith L M McCoyd; Barbara A Bernhardt
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-05-21       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Expert Knowledge Influences Decision-Making for Couples Receiving Positive Prenatal Chromosomal Microarray Testing Results.

Authors:  M A Rubel; A Werner-Lin; F K Barg; B A Bernhardt
Journal:  Cult Med Psychiatry       Date:  2017-09

3.  Pregnant Genetic Counselors in an Era of Advanced Genomic Tests: What Do the Experts Test Prenatally?

Authors:  Shiri Shkedi-Rafid; Yael Hashiloni-Dolev
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2018-03-03       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Accuracy of in-utero MRI to detect fetal brain abnormalities and prognosticate developmental outcome: postnatal follow-up of the MERIDIAN cohort.

Authors:  Anthony R Hart; Nicholas D Embleton; Michael Bradburn; Daniel J A Connolly; Laura Mandefield; Cara Mooney; Paul D Griffiths
Journal:  Lancet Child Adolesc Health       Date:  2019-11-27

5.  Couples experiences of receiving uncertain results following prenatal microarray or exome sequencing: A mixed-methods systematic review.

Authors:  Eleanor Harding; Jennifer Hammond; Lyn S Chitty; Melissa Hill; Celine Lewis
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2020-05-24       Impact factor: 3.242

6.  Parental experiences of uncertainty following an abnormal fetal anomaly scan: Insights using Han's taxonomy of uncertainty.

Authors:  Jennifer Hammond; Jasmijn E Klapwijk; Melissa Hill; Stina Lou; Kelly E Ormond; Karin E M Diderich; Sam Riedijk; Celine Lewis
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2020-07-07       Impact factor: 2.717

7.  Patient-Centered Obstetric Care in the Age of Cell-Free Fetal DNA Prenatal Screening.

Authors:  Patricia K Agatisa; Mary Beth Mercer; Ariane Mitchum; Marissa B Coleridge; Ruth M Farrell
Journal:  J Patient Exp       Date:  2017-08-30
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.