Literature DB >> 3158198

Factors influencing maternal estimates of genetic risk.

E E Ekwo, B F Seals, J O Kim, R A Williamson, J W Hanson.   

Abstract

The relationship between the objective and subjective estimates of genetic risk was studied in 202 women accepting and 50 women not accepting amniocentesis. All women were at risk of having a child with congenital anomalies either because of maternal age at pregnancy or family history of Down syndrome (DS) or other congenital anomalies. Only 28.6% of the women rejecting and 44.4% of the women accepting amniocentesis remembered correctly their objective odds. The correlations between the objective risk estimates and the subjective risk estimates were low overall (r = 0.089, p = 0.08); for women rejecting (r = 0.024, p = 0.44) or accepting (r = 0.082, p = 0.12) amniocentesis. The psychosocial and sociodemographic variables relating to either objective or subjective risk estimates were different for both groups of women. The study provides information on variables that should be taken into consideration in formulating a general theory to predict individual perceptions of genetic risk.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1985        PMID: 3158198     DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.1320200310

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med Genet        ISSN: 0148-7299


  10 in total

1.  Development and validation of tools to assess genetic discrimination and genetically based racism.

Authors:  Roxanne L Parrott; Kami J Silk; Megan R Dillow; Janice L Krieger; Tina M Harris; Celeste M Condit
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 1.798

2.  Probability biases in genetic problem solving: a comparison of undergraduates, genetic counseling graduate students, and genetic counselors.

Authors:  Margaret E Dewhurst; Patricia McCarthy Veach; Claudia Lampman; John Petraitis; Juihsien Kao; Bonnie LeRoy
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 3.  How risk is perceived, constructed and interpreted by clients in clinical genetics, and the effects on decision making: systematic review.

Authors:  Stephanie Sivell; Glyn Elwyn; Clara L Gaff; Angus J Clarke; Rachel Iredale; Chris Shaw; Joanna Dundon; Hazel Thornton; Adrian Edwards
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-10-30       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Toward a new conceptualization and operationalization of risk perception within the genetic counseling domain.

Authors:  C G Palmer; F Sainfort
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Counseling families with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: A psychosocial perspective.

Authors:  M P Richards; N Hallowell; J M Green; F Murton; H Statham
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Cancer Risk Assessment and Genetic Counseling in an Academic Medical Center: Consultands' Satisfaction, Knowledge, and Behavior in the First Year.

Authors:  M Penles Stadler; J J Mulvihill
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Women's Understanding of Their Risk of Developing Breast/Ovarian Cancer Before and After Genetic Counseling.

Authors:  N Hallowell; H Statham; F Murton
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  Adjunct prenatal testing: patient decisions regarding ethnic carrier screening and fluorescence in situ hybridization.

Authors:  Erica L Sturm; Kelly E Ormond
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.537

9.  Risk perception among women at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Robert Pilarski
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2009-04-10       Impact factor: 2.537

10.  Prenatal screening for hemoglobinopathies. III. Applicability of the health belief model.

Authors:  P T Rowley; S Loader; C J Sutera; M Walden; A Kozyra
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1991-03       Impact factor: 11.025

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.