Paola Quaresima1, Federica Visconti2, Elena Greco3, Roberta Venturella2, Costantino Di Carlo2. 1. Unit of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University "Magna Græcia" of Catanzaro, Viale Europa, 88100, Catanzaro, Italy. dr.paolaquaresima@gmail.com. 2. Unit of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University "Magna Græcia" of Catanzaro, Viale Europa, 88100, Catanzaro, Italy. 3. Consultant in Obstetrics and Foetal Medicine, The Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nowadays several Prenatal Tests for Chromosomal Abnormalities Detection (PTCAD) are available. In those cases in which there is not an Institutional protocol to advise women about the available PTCAD, the choice of which one to undergo is up to the woman and largely depends on her knowledge about them. Therefore, we decided to evaluate, as a primary outcome, knowledge about PTCAD among pregnant women attending our Term Clinic. As a secondary outcome we evaluated the relationship between the patient's knowledge and the subsequently chosen PTCAD. METHODS: From August 2017 to August 2018 an anonymous questionnaire with multiple-choice answers was administered to all pregnant women attending our Term antenatal Clinic, a tertiary obstetric unit in Catanzaro (Italy). RESULTS: Three hundred and twenty-five pregnant women were enrolled in the study. We observed that 28.8% of the pregnant women that chose one of the PTCAD, avoided the first trimester combined screening test; among these, 11.4% were in favour of the cell-free foetal DNA test. The latter was erroneously considered diagnostic by 34.3% of the women that had chosen it. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that women's knowledge about PTCAD is poor and that there is a potentially dangerous confusion between the words 'screening' and 'diagnostic'. Informative campaigns about PTCAD and the application of dedicated antenatal counselling appointments should be a health-care priority to avoid unnecessary risks and costs for pregnant women and possible legal issues.
BACKGROUND: Nowadays several Prenatal Tests for Chromosomal Abnormalities Detection (PTCAD) are available. In those cases in which there is not an Institutional protocol to advise women about the available PTCAD, the choice of which one to undergo is up to the woman and largely depends on her knowledge about them. Therefore, we decided to evaluate, as a primary outcome, knowledge about PTCAD among pregnant women attending our Term Clinic. As a secondary outcome we evaluated the relationship between the patient's knowledge and the subsequently chosen PTCAD. METHODS: From August 2017 to August 2018 an anonymous questionnaire with multiple-choice answers was administered to all pregnant women attending our Term antenatal Clinic, a tertiary obstetric unit in Catanzaro (Italy). RESULTS: Three hundred and twenty-five pregnant women were enrolled in the study. We observed that 28.8% of the pregnant women that chose one of the PTCAD, avoided the first trimester combined screening test; among these, 11.4% were in favour of the cell-free foetal DNA test. The latter was erroneously considered diagnostic by 34.3% of the women that had chosen it. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that women's knowledge about PTCAD is poor and that there is a potentially dangerous confusion between the words 'screening' and 'diagnostic'. Informative campaigns about PTCAD and the application of dedicated antenatal counselling appointments should be a health-care priority to avoid unnecessary risks and costs for pregnant women and possible legal issues.
Entities:
Keywords:
Awareness; Down syndrome; Information; Informed consent; Knowledge; Prenatal screening
Authors: Vesna Kosec; Ivana Zec; Dubravka Tislarić-Medenjak; Krunoslav Kuna; Ana Maria Simundić; Marta Lajtman-Krizaić; Boris Lovrić; Marko Mimica; Zrinka Komadina Estatiev; Vesna Borgudan Journal: Coll Antropol Date: 2013-06
Authors: Linda Martin; Janneke T Gitsels-van der Wal; Caroline J Bax; Mijntje J Pieters; Jacqueline C I Y Reijerink-Verheij; Robert-Jan Galjaard; Lidewij Henneman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-05-02 Impact factor: 3.752