The routine and the traumatic in prenatal genetic diagnosis: Does clinical information inform patient decision-making?

Patient Education and Counseling

Volumn 56, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 302-312

  Hunt, Linda M ^a   De Voogd, Katherine B ^b   Castañeda, Heide ^c  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT SAN ANTONIO   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

Author keywords

Decision making; Genetic counseling; Informed consent; Latinas

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AMNIOCENTESIS; ARTICLE; FEMALE; GENETIC COUNSELING; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MALE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL PERSONNEL; MEDICAL PRACTICE; PATIENT; PATIENT CARE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS;

EID: 13844275639     PISSN: 07383991     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2004.03.004     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Chin J.J. Doctor-patient relationship: from medical paternalism to enhanced autonomy. Singapore Med. J. 43:2002;152-155
2. Kenen R., Smith A.C.M., Watkins C., Zuber-Pittore C. To use or not to use: the prenatal genetic technology/worry conundrum. J. Genet. Couns. 9:2000;203-217
3. Lepage N., Chitayat D., Kingdom J., Huang T. Association between second-trimester isolated high maternal serum human chorionic gonadotropin levels and obstetric complications in singleton and twin pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 188:2003;1354-1359
4. Weil J. Psychosocial genetic counseling in the post-nondirective era: a point of view. J Genet Couns. 12:2003;199-211
5. National Society for Genetic Counselors. Genetic Counseling as a Profession. National Society for Genetic Counselors Website. 24 December 2003. Ref Type: Electronic Citation.
6. Elwyn G., Gray J., Clarke A. Shared decision-making and non-directiveness in genetic counselling. J Med Genet. 37:2000;135-138
7. Fraser F.C. Genetic counseling. Am J Hum Genet. 26:1974;636-661
8. Michie S., Bron F., Bobrow M., Marteau T.M. Nondirectiveness in genetic counseling: an empirical study. Am J Hum Genet. 60:1997;40-47
9. Michie S., Marteau T.M., Bobrow M. Genetic counselling: the psychological impact of meeting patients' expectations. J Med Genet. 34:1997;237-241
10. Papantoniou N.E., Daskalakis G.J., Tziotis J.G., Kitmirides S.J., Mesogitis S.A., Antsaklis A.J. Risk factors predisposing to fetal loss following a second trimester amniocentesis. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 108:2001;1053-1056
11. Kuller J.A., Laifer S.A. Contemporary approaches to prenatal diagnosis. Am Fam Physician. 52:1995;2277-2287
12. Press N, Browner CH, Tran D, Morton C, Le Master B. Provisional Normalcy and "Perfect Babies": pregnant women's attitudes toward disability in the context of prenatal testing. In: Franklin S, Ragone H, editors. Reproducing reproduction: kinship, power, and technological innovation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997. p. 46-65.
13. Parens E., Asch A. The disability rights critique of prenatal genetics testing. Hastings Center Rep. 29:1999;S1-S22
14. Asch A. Prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion: a challenge to practice and policy. Am J Public Health. 89:1999;1649-1657
15. Williams C., Alderson P., Farsides B. Is nondirectiveness possible within the context of antenatal screening and testing? Social Sci Med. 54:2002;339-347
16. Brunger F., Lippman A. Resistance and adherence to the norms of genetic counseling. J Genet Couns. 4:1995;151-167
17. Newberger D.S. Down Syndrome: prenatal risk assessment and diagnosis. Am Fam Physician. 62:2000;825-838
18. Petersen A. Facilitating autonomy: the discourse of genetic counselling. In: Petersen A, Bunton R, editors. The new genetics and the public's health. London: Routledge; 2002. p. 135-58.
19. Clarke A. The process of genetic counseling. In: Harper P, Clarke A, editors. Genetics, society and clinical practice. Oxford: BIOS Scientific Publishers; 1997. p. 179-200.
20. Kessler S. Psychological aspects of genetic counseling: nondirectiveness revisited. Am J Med Genet. 72:1997;164-171
21. Anderson G. Nondirectiveness in prenatal genetics: patients read between the lines. Nursing Ethics. 6:1999;126-136
22. Mishler E. The discourse of medicine: dialectics of medical interviews. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation; 1984.
23. Hunt L.M., Arar N.H. An analytical framework for contrasting patient and provider views of the process of chronic disease management. Med Anthropol Q. 15:2001;347-367
24. Kleinman A. Patients and healers in the context of culture. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1980.
25. Cohen M.Z., Tripp-Reimer T., Smith C., Sorofman B., Lively S. Explanatory models of diabetes: patient practitioner variation. Social Sci Med. 38:1994;59-66
26. Bernhardt B.A., Geller G., Doksum T., Larson S.M., Roter D., Holtzman N.A. Prenatal genetic testing: content of discussions between obstetric providers and pregnant women. Obstet Gynecol. 91:1998;648-655
27. Marteau T.M., Plenicar M., Kidd J. Obstetricians presenting amniocentesis to pregnant women: practice observed. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 11:1993;3-10
28. Marteau T.M., Dormandy E. Facilitating informed choice in prenatal testing: how well are we doing? Am J Med Genet. 106:2001;185-190
29. Murray J., Cuckle H., Sehmi I., Wilson C., Ellis A. Quality of written information used in Down Syndrome screening. Prenatal Diagn. 21:2001;138-142
30. Pauker SP, Pauker SG. The amniocentesis decision: ten years of decision analytic experience. In: Evers-Kiebooms G, Cassiman J-J, Van den Berghe H, d'Ydewalle G, editors. Genetic risk, risk perception, and decision making. New York: Alan R. Liss Inc. for the National Foundation - March of Dimes; 1987. p. 151-69.
31. d'Ydewalle G, Evers-Kiebooms G. Experiments on genetic risk perception and decision making: explorative studies. In: Evers-Kiebooms G, Cassiman J-J, Van den Berghe H, d'Ydewalle G, editors. Genetic risk, risk perception, and decision making. New York: March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation; 1987. p. 209-25.
32. Michie S, Marteau TM. Genetic counselling: some issues of theory and practice. In: Marteau TM, Richards M, editors. The troubled helix: social and psychological implications of the new human genetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1996. p. 104-22.
33. Shiloh S. Decision-making in the context of genetic risk. In: Marteau TM, Richards M, editors. The troubled helix: social and psychological implications of the new human genetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1996. p. 82-103.
34. Weil J. Nondirective counseling, risk perception, and decision making. In: Weil J, editor. Psychosocial genetic counseling. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000. p. 117-52.
35. Biesecker B. Prenatal diagnoses for sex chromosome conditions. Br Med J. 322:2001;441-442
36. Browner C.H., Preloran H.M., Cox S.J. Ethnicity, bioethics, and prenatal diagnosis: the amniocentesis decisions of Mexican-origin women and their partners. Am J Public Health. 89:1999;1658-1666
37. Katz Rothman B. The tentative pregnancy: how amniocentesis changes the experience of motherhood. New York: W. W. Norton and Company; 1993.
38. Rapp R. Testing women, testing the fetus: the social impact of amniocentesis in America. New York: Routledge; 1999.
39. Doyle N.M., Gardner M.O. Prenatal cystic fibrosis screening in Mexican Americans: An economic analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 189:2003;764-769
40. Press N.A., Browner C.H. Why women say yes to prenatal diagnosis. Social Sci Med. 45:1997;979-989
41. Gekas J., Gondry J., Mazur S., Cesbron P., Thepot F. Informed consent to serum screening for Down Syndrome: are women given adequate information? Prenatal Diagn. 19:1999;1-7
42. Miles M, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded source book. 2 ed. Sage Publications; 1994.
43. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, SPSS for Windows 10.0. SPSS Inc.; 1999.
44. Hunt LM, de Voogd KB. Autonomy, danger, and choice: the moral imperative of an "At Risk" pregnancy for a group of low-income Latinas in Texas. In: Herr Harthorn B, Oaks L, editors. Risk, culture, and health inequality: shifting perceptions of danger and blame. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers; 2003. p. 37-56.
45. Hunt LM, Castañeda H, de Voogd KB. Do notions of "Risk" inform patient choice? Lessons from a study of prenatal genetic counseling for Latinas. Under Review 2004.
46. Alteneder R.R., Kenner C., Greene D., Pohorecki S. The lived experience of women who undergo prenatal diagnostic testing due to elevated maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein screening. Am J Maternal Child Nursing. 23:1998;180-186
47. Evans M.I., Pryde P.G., Evans W.J., Johnson M.P. The choices women make about prenatal diagnosis. Fetal Diagn Ther. 8:1993;70-80
48. Lippman A. Prenatal genetic testing and geneticization: mother matters for all. Fetal Diagn Ther. 8:1993;175-188
49. Pauker SG, Pauker SP. Prescriptive models to support decision making in genetics. In: Evers-Kiebooms G, Cassiman J-J, Van den Berghe H, d'Ydewalle G, editors. Genetic risks, risk perception, and decision making. New York: Alan R. Liss Inc. for the National Foundation - March of Dimes; 1987. p. 279-96.
50. Rapp R. Chromosomes and communication: the discourse of genetic counseling. Med Anthropol Q. 2:1988;143-157
51. Elimian A., Demsky M., Figueroa R., Ogburn P., Spitzer A.R., Gerald Q.J. The influence of IVF, multiple gestation and miscarriage on the acceptance of genetic amniocentesis. Prenatal Diagn. 23:2003;501-503
52. de la Vega A., Verdiales M., Leavitt G. Method of risk assessment affects acceptance rate of amniocentesis. Puerto Rico Health Sci J. 21:2002;233-235
53. Zoppi M.A., Ibba R.M., Putzolu M., Floris M., Monni G. Nuchal translucency and the acceptance of invasive prenatal chromosomal diagnosis in women aged 35 and older. Obstet Gynecol. 97:2001;916-920
54. Cunningham G.C., Tompkinison D.G. Cost and effectiveness of the California triple marker prenatal screening program. Genet Med. 1:1999;199-206
55. Priest J.H., FitzGerald J.M., Haag M.M., Streets K., Vanisko M., Johnson J.P. Acceptance of amniocentesis by women in the state of Montana (USA) who screen positive for Downs Syndrome. J Med Screening. 5:1998;178-182
56. Viljoen D., Oosthuizen C., van der Westhuizen S. Patient attitudes to prenatal screening and termination of pregnancy at Groote Schuur Hospital: a two year prospective study. East African Med J. 73:1996;327-329
57. Charles C., Gafni A., Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? Social Sci Med. 44:1997;681-692
58. Emery J. Is informed choice in genetic testing a different breed of informed decision-making? A discussion paper. Health Expectations. 4:2001;81-86