The use of prenatal diagnosis testing: What can be learnt from economic analysis of individual decision-making?;Taux de recours au diagnostic prénatal: Quels apports de l'analyse économique de la décision individuelle?

Revue d'Epidemiologie et de Sante Publique

Volumn 51, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 628-630

  Seror, V ^a  

^a INSERM   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABORTION; AMNIOCENTESIS; DECISION MAKING; DOWN SYNDROME; ECONOMIC ASPECT; ETHICS; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN RIGHTS; MATERNAL AGE; NOTE; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; TRISOMY 21;

AMNIOCENTESIS; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; DOWN SYNDROME; ETHNIC GROUPS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MATERNAL AGE; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS;

EID: 0842329125     PISSN: 03987620     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Note

References (14)

1. Khoshnood B, Pryde P, Blondel B, Lee KS. Socioeconomic and state-level differences in prenatal diagnosis and live birth prevalence of Down's syndrome in the United States. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 2003; 51: 617-27.
2. Kreps DM. Notes on the theory of choice. Coll.: "Undergrounds classics in economics". Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1988.
3. Wald NJ, Kennard A, Hackshaw A, McGuire A. Antenatal screening for Down's syndrome. J Med Screen 1997; 4: 181-246.
4. Dommergues M, Aymé S, Janiaud Pj, Seror V. Le diagnostic prénatal: pratiques et enjeux. Coll.: « Questions en Santé Publique ». Paris: Éditions INSERM, 2003 (sous presse).
5. McClennen EF. Rationality and dynamic choice: foundational explorations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
6. Al-Jader LN, Parry-Langdon N, Smith RJ. Survey of attitudes of pregnant women towards Down syndrome screening. Prenat Diagn 2000; 20: 23-9.
7. Gekas J, Gondry J, Mazur S, Cesbron P, Thepot F. Informed consent to serum screening for Down syndrome: are women given adequate information? Prenat Diagn 1999; 19: 1-7.
8. Julian-Reynier C, Macquart-Moulin G, Moatti JP, Loundou A, Aurran Y, Chabal F, Ayme S. Attitudes of women of childbearing age towards prenatal diagnosis in South-Eastern France. Prenat Diagn 1993; 13: 613-27.
9. Kuppermann M, Nease RF, Learman LA, Gates E, Blumberg B, Washington AE. Procedure-related miscarriages and Down's syndrome-affected births: implications for prenatal testing based on women's preferences. Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 96: 511-6.
10. Cairns J, Shackley P. What price information? Modelling threshold probabilities of fetal loss. Soc Sci Med 1999; 49: 823-30.
11. Thornton JG, Lilford RJ. Prenatal diagnosis of Down's syndrome: a method for measuring the consistency of women's decisions. Med Decis Making 1990; 10: 288-93.
12. Kuppermann M, Shiboski S, Feeny D, Elkin EP, Washington AE. Can preference scores for discrete states be used to derive preference scores for an entire path of events? An application to prenatal diagnosis. Med Decis Making 1997; 17: 42-55.
13. Alfirevic Z, Gosden CM, Neilson JP. Chorion villus sampling versus amniocentesis for prenatal diagnosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000; 2.
14. Tabor A, Philip J, Madsen M, Bang J, Obel EB, Norgaard-Pedersen B. Randomised controlled trial of genetic amniocentesis in 4606 low-risk women. Lancet 1986; 1: 1287-93.