Literature DB >> 30502029

Women's preferences for and experiences with prenatal genetic testing decision making: Sociodemographic disparities in preference-concordant decision making.

Fabiola Molina1, Christine Dehlendorf2, Steven E Gregorich3, Miriam Kuppermann4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate women's preferred approach to prenatal genetic testing decision making and assess concordance between preference and experience.
METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from two randomized trials conducted between 2007-2012. Survey items assessed participants' preferred approach to decision making and whether they experienced a preference-concordant decision process. Logistic regression estimated relationships between patient characteristics and these outcomes.
RESULTS: 56% of women preferred autonomous decision making, 39% preferred shared decision making, and 5% preferred a provider-driven approach. Only 57% experienced preference-concordant decision making. On bivariate analysis, black women, Spanish-speaking Latinas and women with less education were less likely to experience this outcome than white, more educated women. Numeracy and preferring a provider-driven approach fully mediated observed disparities in preference-concordant decision making for most participants, except for Spanish-speaking Latinas, who were still less likely to have experienced this outcome after accounting for these factors.
CONCLUSION: Numeracy, preference for provider-driven decision processes, and language barriers were key drivers of disparities in preference-concordant decision making. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Given the values-sensitive and quantitative nature of prenatal testing decisions, nuanced counseling and interventions to address language barriers, numeracy gaps, and decision-making preferences are needed to tailor counseling to patient's backgrounds and desires.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Concordance; Disparities; Patient participation; Patient-centered communication; Preferences; Prenatal genetic testing decision making; Shared decision making

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30502029      PMCID: PMC6421100          DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2018.10.019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Patient Educ Couns        ISSN: 0738-3991


  32 in total

1.  Shared decision making and non-directiveness in genetic counselling.

Authors:  G Elwyn; J Gray; A Clarke
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 6.318

2.  A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects.

Authors:  David P MacKinnon; Chondra M Lockwood; Jeanne M Hoffman; Stephen G West; Virgil Sheets
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2002-03

3.  A practical account of autonomy: why genetic counseling is especially well suited to the facilitation of informed autonomous decision making.

Authors:  Jan Hodgson; Merle Spriggs
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Race, gender, and partnership in the patient-physician relationship.

Authors:  L Cooper-Patrick; J J Gallo; J J Gonzales; H T Vu; N R Powe; C Nelson; D E Ford
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-08-11       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples.

Authors:  I M Lipkus; G Samsa; B K Rimer
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2001 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  Patient preferences for medical decision making: who really wants to participate?

Authors:  N K Arora; C A McHorney
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  Treatment decision making in early-stage breast cancer: should surgeons match patients' desired level of involvement?

Authors:  Nancy L Keating; Edward Guadagnoli; Mary Beth Landrum; Catherine Borbas; Jane C Weeks
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2002-03-15       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  A shortened instrument for literacy screening.

Authors:  Pat F Bass; John F Wilson; Charles H Griffith
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  Shared decision making about screening and chemoprevention. a suggested approach from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Stacey L Sheridan; Russell P Harris; Steven H Woolf
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 5.043

10.  Patient preferences of decision-making in the context of genetic testing for breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Almut W Helmes; Deborah J Bowen; Jürgen Bengel
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2002 May-Jun       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  3 in total

1.  Postpartum women's attitudes to disclosure of adult-onset conditions in pregnancy.

Authors:  Vitalia Libman; Michal Macarov; Yechiel Friedlander; Sidra Goldman-Mellor; Salomon Israel; Drorith Hochner-Celnikier; Yishai Sompolinsky; Uri Pinchas Dior; Michael Osovsky; Lina Basel-Salmon; Arnon Wiznitzer; Yehuda Neumark; Vardiella Meiner; Ayala Frumkin; Shiri Shkedi-Rafid; Hagit Hochner
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2022-05-04       Impact factor: 3.242

Review 2.  Latinx individuals' knowledge of, preferences for, and experiences with prenatal genetic testing: a scoping review.

Authors:  Natalie Grafft; Andrew A Dwyer; María Pineros-Leano
Journal:  Reprod Health       Date:  2022-06-06       Impact factor: 3.355

3.  Pregnant Hispanic women's views and knowledge of prenatal genetic testing.

Authors:  Robin L Page; Christina Murphey; Yahyahan Aras; Lei-Shih Chen; Ryan Loftin
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2021-01-26       Impact factor: 2.537

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.