Literature DB >> 495655

Genetic counseling -- the postcounseling period: II. Making reproductive choices.

A Lippman-Hand, F C Fraser.   

Abstract

Qualitative analysis of transcripts of follow-up interviews with 53 parents who had had genetic counseling was undertaken to characterize the process by which childbearing decisions were made and to determine how counselees resolved the problems created by being at risk. Although specific issues to be resolved varied with a parent's perception of his or her situation, all those who considered having subsequent children attempted to limit the uncertainties they faced and to neutralize those consequences perceived as most problematic. To do so, counselees uniformly inferred from factual information and experiences available to them how they could manage the possible consequences of taking a chance. Factors influencing a parent's ability to make a clear decision included the presence of a previous normal child, the diffusion of decision-making responsibility to others, and recognition that one had already managed the worst. When these "facts" could not be processed to provide a sense of coping, parents either decided against reproduction and took appropriate action or made a "non-decision" about reproduction by choosing to leave conception to chance. These various tactics allowed parents to create a "least-lose" option in terms of their child-bearing choices. This analysis of how parents make reproductive decisions, along with previous findings, suggests that being at risk both creates common problems and elicits common responses from counselees. Moreover, it highlights the importance of recognizing parents' perceptions of their situation to understand how their deliberations are structured and how factual information influences their ultimate choices.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1979        PMID: 495655     DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.1320040109

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


  16 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.  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

5.  Community involvement in developing policies for genetic testing: assessing the interests and experiences of individuals affected by genetic conditions.

Authors:  Sarah E Gollust; Kira Apse; Barbara P Fuller; Paul Steven Miller; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 9.308

6.  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

7.  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

8.  Grounded theory in genetic counseling research: an interpretive perspective.

Authors:  Robin E Grubs; Maria Piantanida
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2010-02-02       Impact factor: 2.537

9.  Decision-making through dialogue: reconfiguring autonomy in genetic counseling.

Authors:  M T White
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  1998-01

10.  Reproductive decision making: interviews with mothers of children with undiagnosed developmental delay.

Authors:  Emily Pond; Rebecca Dimond
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2018-02-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.