Literature DB >> 30297905

Offering a choice between NIPT and invasive PND in prenatal genetic counseling: the impact of clinician characteristics on patients' test uptake.

Sanne L van der Steen1, Diewertje Houtman2, Iris M Bakkeren1, Robert-Jan H Galjaard1, Marike G Polak3, Jan J Busschbach4, Aad Tibben5, Sam R Riedijk1.   

Abstract

Testing options for pregnant women at increased risk of common aneuploidies are non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and invasive prenatal diagnosis (PND). Clinicians are challenged to comprehensively discuss the complex information in a patient-centered and non-directive manner, to allow for patients' informed decision-making. This study explored the information-centeredness, patient-centeredness, and level of non-directivity of different clinicians and examined group differences between their patients. First, semi-structured interviews with four senior obstetricians and one senior nurse were held regarding their information provision, their adaptation of a patient-centered attitude, and their practice of non-directivity. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and rated by four independent researchers. Secondly, 181 pregnant women were included in the study, of whom 82% opted for NIPT and 18% chose PND. Between clinicians, we assessed the distribution of choice ratios, patients' impression of clinicians' test preferences, and patients' knowledge scores. The results indicate that clinicians do not differ in their information-centeredness, but do differ in their patient-centeredness and their level of non-directivity. Significant differences in patients' NIPT/PND ratios were observed between clinicians, with the largest difference being 35 vs. 4% opting for invasive PND. Between 9 and 22% of the patients had an impression of their clinician's preference and chose in accordance with this preference. Patients' overall knowledge scores did not differ across clinicians. In conclusion, the differences in NIPT/PND ratios between clinicians indicate that clinicians' differing counseling approaches affect the choices their patients make. The interviews indicate a possible framing effect which may unintentionally steer the decision-making process.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30297905      PMCID: PMC6336774          DOI: 10.1038/s41431-018-0287-z

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


  21 in total

1.  Psychological aspects of genetic counseling: VII. Thoughts on directiveness.

Authors:  Seymour Kessler
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Nondirectiveness and its lay interpretations: the effect of counseling style, ethnicity and culture on attitudes towards genetic counseling among Jewish and Bedouin respondents in Israel.

Authors:  Aviad E Raz; Marcela Atar
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Psychological aspects of genetic counseling. XI. Nondirectiveness revisited.

Authors:  S Kessler
Journal:  Am J Med Genet       Date:  1997-10-17

4.  0.5 Mb array as a first-line prenatal cytogenetic test in cases without ultrasound abnormalities and its implementation in clinical practice.

Authors:  Malgorzata I Srebniak; Lisanne Mout; Diane Van Opstal; Robert-Jan H Galjaard
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2013-06-06       Impact factor: 4.878

5.  Genetic counseling for prenatal testing: where is the discussion about disability?

Authors:  Ellyn Farrelly; Mildred K Cho; Lori Erby; Debra Roter; Anabel Stenzel; Kelly Ormond
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-08-17       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  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

7.  [The scope of prenatal diagnostic testing for chromosomal aberrations: broad or narrow? Ethical considerations on the choice of tests].

Authors:  Antina de Jong; Wybo J Dondorp; Guido M W R de Wert
Journal:  Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd       Date:  2009

8.  Recommended pre-test counseling points for noninvasive prenatal testing using cell-free DNA: a 2015 perspective.

Authors:  Amy Sachs; Leah Blanchard; Amanda Buchanan; Errol Norwitz; Diana W Bianchi
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2015-09-03       Impact factor: 3.050

9.  What does my doctor think? Preferences for knowing the doctor's opinion among women considering clinical testing for BRCA1/2 mutations.

Authors:  Katrina Armstrong; Jill Stopfer; Kathleen Calzone; Genevieve Fitzgerald; James Coyne; Barbara Weber
Journal:  Genet Test       Date:  2002

Review 10.  The Psychological Challenges of Replacing Conventional Karyotyping with Genomic SNP Array Analysis in Prenatal Testing.

Authors:  Sam Riedijk; Karin E M Diderich; Sanne L van der Steen; Lutgarde C P Govaerts; Marieke Joosten; Maarten F C M Knapen; Femke A T de Vries; Diane van Opstal; Aad Tibben; Robert-Jan H Galjaard
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2014-07-03       Impact factor: 4.241

View more
  5 in total

1.  Non-invasive prenatal testing in mitigating concerns from invasive prenatal diagnostic testing: retrospective assessment of utility in an academic healthcare system in the US.

Authors:  Kibum Kim; Linda Kaitlyn Craft
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-06-15       Impact factor: 3.006

2.  A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Influence of Prenatal Counseling on the Attitudes and Preferences Toward Invasive Prenatal Testing Among Women in Their First Trimester of Pregnancy (INVASIVE).

Authors:  Fernanda Paz Y Miño; Raigam Jafet Martinez-Portilla; Montse Pauta; Antoni Borrell
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2020-11-09       Impact factor: 4.599

3.  Preference for secondary findings in prenatal and pediatric exome sequencing.

Authors:  Kate Swanson; Teresa N Sparks; Billie R Lianoglou; Flavia Chen; Sarah Downum; Sachi Patel; Shannon Rego; Tiffany Yip; Jessica Van Ziffle; Barbara A Koenig; Anne M Slavotinek; Mary E Norton
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2021-06-07       Impact factor: 3.242

Review 4.  Decision-making factors in prenatal testing: A systematic review.

Authors:  Valentina Di Mattei; Federica Ferrari; Gaia Perego; Valentina Tobia; Fabio Mauro; Massimo Candiani
Journal:  Health Psychol Open       Date:  2021-01-13

5.  Implementing non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in the Netherlands: An interview study exploring opinions about and experiences with societal pressure, reimbursement, and an expanding scope.

Authors:  Iris M Bakkeren; Adriana Kater-Kuipers; Eline M Bunnik; Attie T J I Go; Aad Tibben; Inez D de Beaufort; Robert-Jan H Galjaard; Sam R Riedijk
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2019-11-11       Impact factor: 2.537

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.