Literature DB >> 29516345

Informed Decision-Making in the Context of Prenatal Chromosomal Microarray.

Jessica Baker1,2, Cheryl Shuman3,4, David Chitayat3,4,5, Syed Wasim6, Nan Okun5, Johannes Keunen5, Renee Hofstedter5, Rachel Silver3,5.   

Abstract

The introduction of chromosomal microarray (CMA) into the prenatal setting has involved considerable deliberation due to the wide range of possible outcomes (e.g., copy number variants of uncertain clinical significance). Such issues are typically discussed in pre-test counseling for pregnant women to support informed decision-making regarding prenatal testing options. This research study aimed to assess the level of informed decision-making with respect to prenatal CMA and the factor(s) influencing decision-making to accept CMA for the selected prenatal testing procedure (i.e., chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis). We employed a questionnaire that was adapted from a three-dimensional measure previously used to assess informed decision-making with respect to prenatal screening for Down syndrome and neural tube defects. This measure classifies an informed decision as one that is knowledgeable, value-consistent, and deliberated. Our questionnaire also included an optional open-ended question, soliciting factors that may have influenced the participants' decision to accept prenatal CMA; these responses were analyzed qualitatively. Data analysis on 106 participants indicated that 49% made an informed decision (i.e., meeting all three criteria of knowledgeable, deliberated, and value-consistent). Analysis of 59 responses to the open-ended question showed that "the more information the better" emerged as the dominant factor influencing both informed and uninformed participants' decisions to accept prenatal CMA. Despite learning about the key issues in pre-test genetic counseling, our study classified a significant portion of women as making uninformed decisions due to insufficient knowledge, lack of deliberation, value-inconsistency, or a combination of these three measures. Future efforts should focus on developing educational approaches and counseling strategies to effectively increase the rate of informed decision-making among women offered prenatal CMA.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Deliberation; Genetic counseling; Informed decision-making; Knowledge; Microarray; Prenatal; Value consistency

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29516345     DOI: 10.1007/s10897-018-0231-y

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


  45 in total

1.  Racial-ethnic differences in genetic amniocentesis uptake.

Authors:  Jennifer B Saucier; Dennis Johnston; Catherine A Wicklund; Patricia Robbins-Furman; Jacqueline T Hecht; Manju Monga
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 2.  Prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis in a diagnostic laboratory; experience with >1000 cases and review of the literature.

Authors:  Amy Breman; Amber N Pursley; Patricia Hixson; Weimin Bi; Patricia Ward; Carlos A Bacino; Chad Shaw; James R Lupski; Arthur Beaudet; Ankita Patel; Sau W Cheung; Ignatia Van den Veyver
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 3.050

3.  Genetic counselling and ethical issues with chromosome microarray analysis in prenatal testing.

Authors:  George McGillivray; Jill A Rosenfeld; R J McKinlay Gardner; Lynn H Gillam
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 3.050

4.  Knowledge of prenatal screening and psychological management of test decisions.

Authors:  K Dahl; L Hvidman; F S Jørgensen; U S Kesmodel
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 7.299

Review 5.  Ethical controversies in prenatal microarray.

Authors:  Zornitza Stark; Lynn Gillam; Susan P Walker; George McGillivray
Journal:  Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 1.927

6.  The multi-dimensional measure of informed choice: a validation study.

Authors:  Susan Michie; Elizabeth Dormandy; Theresa M Marteau
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2002-09

7.  Chromosomal microarray analysis as a first-line test in pregnancies with a priori low risk for the detection of submicroscopic chromosomal abnormalities.

Authors:  Francesco Fiorentino; Stefania Napoletano; Fiorina Caiazzo; Mariateresa Sessa; Sara Bono; Letizia Spizzichino; Anthony Gordon; Andrea Nuccitelli; Giuseppe Rizzo; Marina Baldi
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-12-05       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 8.  Psychosocial aspects of genetic screening of pregnant women and newborns: a systematic review.

Authors:  J M Green; J Hewison; H L Bekker; L D Bryant; H S Cuckle
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 4.014

9.  Prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities using array-based comparative genomic hybridization.

Authors:  Trilochan Sahoo; Sau Wai Cheung; Patricia Ward; Sandra Darilek; Ankita Patel; Daniela del Gaudio; Sung Hae L Kang; Seema R Lalani; Jiangzhen Li; Sallie McAdoo; Audrey Burke; Chad A Shaw; Pawel Stankiewicz; A Craig Chinault; Ignatia B Van den Veyver; Benjamin B Roa; Arthur L Beaudet; Christine M Eng
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Experience with microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization for prenatal diagnosis in over 5000 pregnancies.

Authors:  Lisa G Shaffer; Mindy P Dabell; Allan J Fisher; Justine Coppinger; Anne M Bandholz; Jay W Ellison; J Britt Ravnan; Beth S Torchia; Blake C Ballif; Jill A Rosenfeld
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2012-08-02       Impact factor: 3.050

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Molecular Approaches in Fetal Malformations, Dynamic Anomalies and Soft Markers: Diagnostic Rates and Challenges-Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Gioia Mastromoro; Daniele Guadagnolo; Nader Khaleghi Hashemian; Enrica Marchionni; Alice Traversa; Antonio Pizzuti
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-23
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.