Literature DB >> 495654

Genetic counseling--the postcounseling period: I. Parents' perceptions of uncertainty.

A Lippman-Hand, F C Fraser.   

Abstract

To investigate how parents who have had genetic counseling perceive the problems created by being at risk, transcripts of open-ended, semistructured follow-up interviews with 53 counselees were analyzed qualitatively. Rate information, though recalled accurately by parents considering further childbearing, was discounted as impersonal, and subjects overwhelmingly perceived the chance of recurrence in binary form -- it either will or will not happen. By processing rates this way, they simplified probabilistic information and shifted their focus to the implications of being at risk and the potential impact of that which might or might not occur. The many uncertainties they faced, the "consequences" of being at risk that parents felt had to be resolved during the decision-making process, fell into 3 major categories: uncertainty that arose because of the ambiguous impact and meaning of having an affected child; uncertainty about how to make a choice and how others would view it, the burden of decision-making; and uncertainty about their ability to fulfill their roles as parents. These issues were perceived as part of the problem to be resolved and were consolidated into "scenarios" in which the parents "tried out the worst." This analysis of counselees' perceptions of the problems created by being at genetic risk suggests that parents may process the disparate facts of their situation in common ways that emphasize their uncertainty, and it indicates that how parents perceive factual information may be more important in orienting their deliberations than what these facts (diagnosis, prognosis, risks) actually are.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1979        PMID: 495654     DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.1320040108

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


  25 in total

1.  Nuance, complexity, and context: qualitative methods in genetic counseling research.

Authors:  Diane Beeson
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 2.  Nondirectiveness and genetic counseling.

Authors:  Gerhard Wolff; Christine Jung
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  "Respect for autonomy" in genetic counseling: an analysis and a proposal.

Authors:  Mary Terrell White
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Client perceptions of the impact of genetic counseling: an exploratory study.

Authors:  Patricia McCarthy Veach; Sarah E Truesdell; Bonnie S LeRoy; Dianne M Bartels
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Perception of genetic risk among genetic counselors.

Authors:  J Roggenbuck; J E Olson; T A Sellers; C Ludowese
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Feature article: Recombinant DNA technology, genetic tests, and public policy.

Authors:  N A Holtzman
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1988-04       Impact factor: 11.025

7.  Risky communication: pitfalls in counseling about risk, and how to avoid them.

Authors:  K O'Doherty; G K Suthers
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-05-01       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  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

9.  Resistance and adherence to the norms of genetic counseling.

Authors:  F Brunger; A Lippman
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 2.537

10.  Making sense of genetic uncertainty: the role of religion and spirituality.

Authors:  Mary T White
Journal:  Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet       Date:  2009-02-15       Impact factor: 3.908

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.