Presentation of screen negative results on serum screening for Down's syndrome: Variations across britain

Journal of Medical Screening

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 21-22

  Allanson, Abi ^a   Michie, Susan ^a   Marteau, Theresa M ^a,b  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b Department of Health Psychology ^*

Author keywords

Communication; Down's syndrome; Genetic tests; Screen negative results

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; DOWN SYNDROME; FEMALE; GENETIC SCREENING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; UNITED KINGDOM; VERBAL COMMUNICATION;

EID: 0031395461     PISSN: 09691413     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/096914139700400108     Document Type: Article

References (7)

1. Bruster S, Jarman B, Bosanquet N, Weston D, Erens R, Delbanco TL. National survey of hospital patients. BMJ 1994;309:1542-46.
2. McDonald IG, Daly J, Jelinek VM, Panetta F, Gutman JM. Opening Pandora's box: the unpredictability of reassurance by a normal test result. BMJ 1996;313:329-32.
3. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Report of the RCOG Working Party on Biochemical Markers and the Detection of Down's Syndrome. London: RCOG Press, 1993.
4. Wald NJ, Huttly W, Wald K, Kennard A. Down's syndrome screening in UK. Lancet 1996;347:330.
5. Smith DK, Shaw RW, Marteau TM. Informed consent to undergo serum screening for Down syndrome: the gap between policy and practice. BMJ 1994;309:776.
6. Hall S, Bobrow M, Marteau T. Parents' attributions of blame for the birth of a child with Down syndrome: a pilot study. Psychology and Health. In press.
7. Brun W. Risk perception: main issues, approaches and findings. In: Wright G, Ayton P, ed. Subjective probability. Chichester: Wiley, 1994:295-320.