Applying decision analysis to facilitate informed decision making about prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome: A randomised controlled trial

Prenatal Diagnosis

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 265-275

  Bekker, Hilary L ^a   Hewison, Jenny ^a   Thornton, Jim G ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^b NOTTINGHAM CITY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Decision analysis; Down syndrome; Informed choice; Patient attitudes; Prenatal testing

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANXIETY DISORDER; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONFLICT; CONSULTATION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; DOWN SYNDROME; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMED CONSENT; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; NORMAL HUMAN; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCORING SYSTEM;

EMPIRICAL APPROACH; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION;

ANXIETY; COUNSELING; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; DOWN SYNDROME; FEMALE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 1842632621     PISSN: 01973851     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pd.851     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Bastian LA, McBride CM, Fish L, et al. 2002. Evaluating participants' use of a hormone replacement therapy decision-making intervention. Patient Educ Couns 48: 283-291.
2. Beekhuis JR, de Wolf BTHM, Mantingh A, Heringa MP. 1994. The influence of serum screening on the amniocentesis rate in women of advanced maternal age. Prenat Diagn 14: 199-202.
3. Bekker HL, Hewison J, Thornton JG. 2003a. Understanding why decision aids work: linking process and outcome. Patient Educ Couns 50: 323-329.
4. Bekker HL, Legare F, Stacey D, O'Connor A, Lemyre L. 2003b. Is anxiety an appropriate measure of decision aid effectiveness: a systematic review? Patient Educ Couns 50: 255-262.
5. Bekker HL. 2003. Genetic testing: facilitating informed choices. In Encyclopaedia of the Human Genome, Cooper DN, Thomas N (eds). Nature Publishing Group-Macmillan Publishers Ltd: New York; 926-930.
6. Bekker H, Thornton JG, Airey M, et al. 1999. Informed Patient Decision Making: An Annotated Bibliography and Systematic Review. NHS R&D: UK; Health Technology Assessment Number 3.
7. Carroll JS, Johnson EJ. 1990. Decision Research: A Field Guide. Sage: USA.
8. Charles C, Whelan T, Gafni A. 1999. What do we mean by partnership in making decisions about treatment? BMJ 319: 780-782.
9. Department of Health. 2000. The NHS Plan: A Plan for Investment, a Plan for Reform. HMSO.
10. Drake E, Engler-Todd L, O'Connor AM, Surh L, Hunter A. 1999. A decision aid for women of advanced maternal age. Front Fetal Health 1: 11.
11. Eagly AH, Chaiken S. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Harcourt Brace and Company: USA.
12. Edwards A, Evans R, Elwyn G. 2003. Manufactured but imported: new directions for research in shared decision making support and skills. Patient Educ Couns 50: 33-38.
13. Entwistle VA, Sowden AJ, Watt IS. 1998. Evaluating interventions to promote patient involvement in decision-making: by what criteria should effectiveness be judged? J Health Serv Res Policy 3: 100-107.
14. Evans MI, Pryde PG, Evans WJ, Johnson MP. 1993. The choices women make about prenatal diagnosis. Fetal Diagn Therapy 8: 70-80.
15. Farrant W. 1985. Chapter 7: who's for amniocentesis? The politics of prenatal screening. In The Sexual Politics of Reproduction, Homans H (ed.). Gower Publishing Company, Ltd: UK.
16. French BN, Kurczynski TW, Weaver MT, Pituch MJ. 1992. Evaluation of the health belief model and decision making regarding amniocentesis in women of advanced maternal age. Health Educ Quarterly 19: 177-186.
17. Frisch D, Clemen RT. 1994. Beyond expected utility: rethinking behavioural decision research. Psychol Bull 116: 46-54.
18. Green JM, Hewison J, Bekker HL, Bryant LD, Murray J, Cuckle H. 2004. Psychosocial Aspects of Genetic Screening of Pregnant Women and Newborns: A Systematic Review. Health Technology Assessment, NHS R&D: UK; (in press).
19. Halliday J, Lumley J, Watson L. 1995. Comparison of women who do and do not have amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling. Lancet 345: 704-709.
20. Halliday JL, Warren R, McDonald G, Liamputtong-Rice P, Bell RJ, Eatson LF. 2001. Prenatal diagnosis for women aged 37 years and over: to have or not to have. Prenat Diagn 21: 842-847.
21. Hamm RM, Scheid DC, Smith WR, Tape TG. 2000. Opportunities for applying psychological theory to improve medical decision making: two case histories. In Decision Making in Health Care: Theory, Psychology and Applications, Chapman GB, Sonnenberg FA (eds). Cambridge University Press: UK.
22. Heckerling PS, Verp MS, Hadrow TA. 1994. Preferences of pregnant women for amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling for prenatal testing: comparison of patients' choice and those of a decision-analytic model. J Clin Epidemiol 47: 1215-1228.
23. Heckerling PS, Verp MS. 1991. Amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling for prenatal genetic testing: a decision analysis. J Clinical Epidemiol 44: 657-670.
24. Holmes-Rovner M, Krol J, Schmitt N, et al. 1996. Patient satisfaction with health care decisions: the satisfaction with decision scale. Med Decis Making 16: 58-64.
25. Janis IL, Mann L. 1977. Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice and Commitment. The Free Press: New York.
26. Julian-Reyner C, MacQuart-Moulin G, Moatti J-P, Aurran Y, Chabal F, Ayme S. 1994. Reasons for women's non-uptake of amniocentesis. Prenat Diagn 14: 859-864.
27. Kessler S. 1992. Psychological aspects of genetic counseling. VII. Thoughts on directiveness. J Genetic Courts 1: 9-18.
28. Lippman-Hand A, Fraser FC. 1979. Genetic counseling: parents responses to uncertainty. Birth Defects 15: 325-339.
29. Marteau TM, Bekker H. 1992. The development of the six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Br J Clin Psychol 31: 301-306.
30. Marteau TM, Cook R, Kidd J, et al. 1992. The psychological effects of false-positive results in prenatal screening for fetal abnormality: a prospective study. Prenat Diagn 12: 205-214.
31. Marteau TM, Dormandy E, Michie S. 2001. A measure of informed choice. Health Expect 4: 99-108.
32. Marteau TM. 1995. Towards informed decisions about prenatal testing: a review. Prenat Diagn 15: 1215-1226.
33. Michie S, Smith D, McClennan A, Marteau TM. 1997. Patient decision making: an evaluation of two methods of presenting information about a screening test. Br J Health Psychol 2: 317-326.
34. Nielsen CC. 1981. An encounter with modern medical technology: women's experiences with amniocentesis. Women & Health 6: 109-124.
35. O'Connor AM, Fiset V, DeGrasse C, et al. 1999a. Decision aids for patients considering options affecting cancer outcomes: evidence of efficacy and policy implications. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 25: 67-80.
36. O'Connor AM, Fiset V, Rostom A, et al. 2001. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. The Cochrane Database of Syst Rev 2: 1-14.
37. O'Connor AM, Rostom A, Fiset V, et al. 1999b. Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: a systematic review. BMJ 319: 731-734.
38. O'Connor AM. 1995. Validation of a decision conflict scale. Med Decis Making 15: 25-30.
39. Pauker SP, Pauker SG. 1979. The amniocentesis decision: an explicit guide for parents. Birth Defects 15: 289-324.
40. Pauker SP. 1998. Empowering individuals in the prevention of genetic disease. Int J Technol Assessment Health Care 14: 36-40.
41. Payne JW. 1980. Chapter 6: information processing theory: some concepts and methods applied to decision research. In Cognitive Processes in Choice and Decision Behaviour, Wallston TS (ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: USA; 95-115.
42. Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Working Party. 1993. Report of the RCOG Working Party on Biochemical Markers and the Decision of Down's Syndrome. Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology: UK.
43. Royal College of Physicians Working Party. 1989. Prenatal Diagnosis and Genetic Screening: Community and Service Implications. The Royal College of Physicians of London: UK.
44. Santalahti P, Aro AR, Hemminki E, Helenus H, Ryynanen M. 1998. On what ground do women participate in prenatal screening? Prenat Diagn 18: 153-165.
45. Seror V, Costet N, Ayme S. 2001. Participation in maternal marker screening for Down syndrome: contribution of the information delivered to the decision making process. Community Genetics 4: 158-172.
46. Sjorgren B, Uddenberg N. 1988. Decision making during the prenatal diagnostic procedure. A questionnaire and interview study of 211 women participating in prenatal diagnosis. Prenat Diagn 8: 263-273.
47. Thornton JG, Lilford RJ. 1990. Prenatal diagnosis of Down's syndrome: a method for measuring the consistency of women's decisions. Med Decis Making 10: 288-293.
48. Thornton JG, Lilford RJ, Johnson N. 1992. Decision analysis in medicine. BMJ 304: 1099-1105.
49. Ubel PA, Loewenstein G. 1997. The role of decision analysis in informed consent: choosing between intuition and systematicity. Soc Sci Med 44: 647-656.
50. Verp MS, Heckerling PS. 1995. Use of decision analysis to evaluate patients' choices of diagnostic prenatal test. Am J Med Genet 58: 337-344.
51. Volodkevich H, Huether CA. 1981. Causes of low utilization of amniocentesis by women of advanced maternal age. Soc Biol 28: 176-186.
52. Von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W. 1993. Decision Analysis and Behavioural Research. Cambridge University Press: USA.
53. Wilson TD, Lisle DJ, Schooler J. 1993. Introspecting about reasons can reduce post-choice satisfaction. Pers Soc Psychol 60: 181-192.
54. Zey M. 1998. Rational Choice Theory and Organizational Theory: A Critique. SAGE Publications, Inc: USA.