Literature DB >> 29386663

Interpretations of autonomous decision-making in antenatal genetic screening among women in China, Hong Kong and Pakistan.

Shenaz Ahmed1, Huso Yi2, Dong Dong3, Jianfeng Zhu4, Hussain Jafri5, Yasmin Rashid6, Olivia My Ngan7, Mushtaq Ahmed7.   

Abstract

The concept of informed choice for antenatal screening consists of Western ideologies, encapsulating individualistic approaches, and may be valued differently by people from countries with more collectivist cultures. This study aimed to explore perceptions of informed choice in antenatal screening in women from China, Hong Kong and Pakistan. A Q-methodology study was conducted during June 2016 to February 2017, in China (Shanghai and Duyun), Hong Kong and Pakistan (Lahore). A total of 299 women rank ordered 41 statements. Following by-person factor analysis, five distinct viewpoints were identified: choice as a maternal responsibility entrusted to doctors; choice as a shared decision led by the mother; choice as a shared decision led by the partner; choice as a responsibility delegated to the partner and doctors; and choice within a religious discourse. The findings highlight ethical dilemmas for healthcare professionals in facilitating informed choice for antenatal screening where policy and practice guidelines adapt predominantly individualistic approaches. Women's preferences for decision-making with health professionals and/or their partner, with minimal emphasis on individual rights, suggest the need for clarification of the role of health professionals in supporting and facilitating decision-making to enhance women's autonomy. Policy and practice guidelines need to be (re)framed to facilitate decision-making processes for antenatal screening using relational approaches to autonomy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29386663      PMCID: PMC5891493          DOI: 10.1038/s41431-017-0091-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet        ISSN: 1018-4813            Impact factor:   4.246


  27 in total

1.  Informed decision making: an annotated bibliography and systematic review.

Authors:  H Bekker; J G Thornton; C M Airey; J B Connelly; J Hewison; M B Robinson; J Lilleyman; M MacIntosh; A J Maule; S Michie; A D Pearman
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 4.014

2.  Putting the Q into quality of life; the identification of subjective constructions of health-related quality of life using Q methodology.

Authors:  Paul H D Stenner; Deborah Cooper; Suzanne M Skevington
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 4.634

3.  Relational ethics and genetic counseling.

Authors:  Marilyn Evans; Vangie Bergum; Stephen Bamforth; Sandra MacPhail
Journal:  Nurs Ethics       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 2.874

4.  Advice, authority and autonomy in shared decision-making in antenatal screening: the importance of context.

Authors:  Alison Pilnick; Olga Zayts
Journal:  Sociol Health Illn       Date:  2015-10-05

Review 5.  Enduring and emerging challenges of informed consent.

Authors:  Christine Grady
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-02-26       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Noninvasive prenatal testing goes global.

Authors:  Subhashini Chandrasekharan; Mollie A Minear; Anthony Hung; Megan Allyse
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2014-04-09       Impact factor: 17.956

7.  Interpretations of informed choice in antenatal screening: a cross-cultural, Q-methodology study.

Authors:  Shenaz Ahmed; Louise D Bryant; Zahra Tizro; Darren Shickle
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2012-01-25       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 8.  Relational autonomy or undue pressure? Family's role in medical decision-making.

Authors:  Anita Ho
Journal:  Scand J Caring Sci       Date:  2008-03

Review 9.  Recent advances in prenatal genetic screening and testing.

Authors:  Ignatia B Van den Veyver
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2016-10-28

10.  Healthcare professionals' and patients' perspectives on consent to clinical genetic testing: moving towards a more relational approach.

Authors:  Gabrielle Natalie Samuel; Sandi Dheensa; Bobbie Farsides; Angela Fenwick; Anneke Lucassen
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2017-08-08       Impact factor: 2.652

View more
  1 in total

1.  A scoping review of Q-methodology in healthcare research.

Authors:  Kate Churruca; Kristiana Ludlow; Wendy Wu; Kate Gibbons; Hoa Mi Nguyen; Louise A Ellis; Jeffrey Braithwaite
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2021-06-21       Impact factor: 4.615

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.