Literature DB >> 9572205

Prenatal genetic testing: content of discussions between obstetric providers and pregnant women.

B A Bernhardt1, G Geller, T Doksum, S M Larson, D Roter, N A Holtzman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To document the content and accuracy of discussions about prenatal genetic testing between obstetric providers and pregnant women.
METHODS: The first prenatal visits of 169 pregnant women with 21 obstetricians and 19 certified nurse-midwives were audiotaped and analyzed for whether a discussion of family history or genetic testing took place and if so, its length, content, and accuracy.
RESULTS: Family history was discussed in 60% of visits, maternal serum marker screening in 60%, second-trimester ultrasonography for fetal anomalies in 34%, and for women at least 35 years old, amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) in 98%. The length of discussions of genetic testing averaged 2.5 minutes for women younger than 35 years of age and 6.9 minutes for older women. Topics discussed most often were the practical details of testing, the purpose of testing, and the fact that testing is voluntary. Discussions seldom were comprehensive. Obstetricians were more likely to make a recommendation about testing than were nurse-midwives and were less likely to indicate that testing is voluntary. Most women were satisfied with the amount of information, and the majority of women of advanced maternal age had made a decision about amniocentesis or CVS by the end of the visit.
CONCLUSION: The information about genetic testing provided in the first prenatal visit is inadequate for ensuring informed autonomous decision-making. Guidelines addressing the content of these discussions should be developed with input from obstetricians, nurse-midwives, genetic counselors, and pregnant women.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9572205     DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(98)00011-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  14 in total

1.  Wisdom, casuistry, and the goal of reproductive counseling.

Authors:  Anders Nordgren
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2002

2.  Authoritative knowledge, the technological imperative and women's responses to prenatal diagnostic technologies.

Authors:  Judith L M McCoyd
Journal:  Cult Med Psychiatry       Date:  2010-12

Review 3.  Assessment of the content and process of genetic counseling: a critical review of empirical studies.

Authors:  Bettina Meiser; Jennifer Irle; Elizabeth Lobb; Kristine Barlow-Stewart
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2008-09-13       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Comparing genetic counselor's and patient's perceptions of needs in prenatal chromosomal microarray testing.

Authors:  Sarah A Walser; Katherine S Kellom; Steven C Palmer; Barbara A Bernhardt
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2015-06-19       Impact factor: 3.050

5.  Nationwide survey for current clinical status of amniocentesis and maternal serum marker test in Japan.

Authors:  Hidehiko Miyake; Shigehito Yamada; Yosuke Fujii; Hideaki Sawai; Naoko Arimori; Yasuko Yamanouchi; Yuka Ozasa; Makoto Kanai; Haruhiko Sago; Akihiko Sekizawa; Fumio Takada; Hideaki Masuzaki; Yoichi Matsubara; Fumiki Hirahara; Koji Kugu
Journal:  J Hum Genet       Date:  2016-06-30       Impact factor: 3.172

6.  How do obstetric providers discuss referrals for prenatal genetic counseling?

Authors:  Barbara A Bernhardt; Carrie Mastromarino Haunstetter; Debra Roter; Gail Geller
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 7.  Pre- and post-test genetic counseling for chromosomal and Mendelian disorders.

Authors:  Jill Fonda Allen; Katie Stoll; Barbara A Bernhardt
Journal:  Semin Perinatol       Date:  2015-12-21       Impact factor: 3.300

8.  Cell-free fetal DNA testing: a pilot study of obstetric healthcare provider attitudes toward clinical implementation.

Authors:  Lauren C Sayres; Megan Allyse; Mary E Norton; Mildred K Cho
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2011-07-27       Impact factor: 3.050

9.  Differences in individual approaches: communication in the familial breast cancer consultation and the effect on patient outcomes.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Lobb; Phyllis Butow; Alexandra Barratt; Bettina Meiser; Katherine Tucker
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 2.537

10.  Perceptions of prenatal testing for birth defects among rural Latinas.

Authors:  Courtney Griffiths; Miriam Kuppermann
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2007-10-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.