Improving population health or the population itself? Health technology assessment and our genetic future

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 106-114

  Bassett, Ken ^a   Lee, Patricia M ^b   Green, Carolyn J ^a   Mitchell, Lisa ^c   Kazanjian, Arminée ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b CHILDREN S AND WOMEN S HEALTH CENTRE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Eugenics; Health policy; Health technology assessment; Prenatal genetic testing

Indexed keywords

ABORTIONS; TRIPLE-MARKER SCREENING (TMS);

CHROMOSOMES; DIAGNOSIS; GENETIC ENGINEERING; PUBLIC POLICY; STANDARDS;

HEALTH CARE;

ABORTION; AMNIOCENTESIS; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; BLOOD EXAMINATION; CANADA; CHROMOSOME ABERRATION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DISABILITY; DOWN SYNDROME; ETHICS; GENETIC SCREENING; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HUMAN; MEDICAL GENETICS; NEURAL TUBE DEFECT; POLITICS; POPULATION; PRENATAL SCREENING; REVIEW; STANDARD; TRIPLE MARKER SCREENING;

GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION;

BRITISH COLUMBIA; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; DOWN SYNDROME; EUGENICS; FEMALE; GENETIC SCREENING; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; MOTHERS; NEURAL TUBE DEFECTS; POLICY MAKING; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 2542460451     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462304000893     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Asch A. Prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion: A challenge to practice and policy. Am J Public Health. 1999;89:1649-1657.
2. Baillie C, Hewison J. Antenatal screening: Obtaining selective consent to scanning, rather than screening, is possible. Letter. BMJ. 1999;318:805.
3. Bassett KL, Lee P, Green CJ, et al. Triple marker screening in British Columbia: Current practice, future options. Final Report made to Minister's Advisory Council on Women's Health. Vancouver, BC: University of BC, 2000. BC Office of Health Technology Assessment Report 00:14T.
4. Carroll JC, Reid AJ, Woodward CA, et al. Ontario Maternal Serum Screening program: Practices, knowledge and opinion of health care providers. CMAJ. 1997;156:775-784.
5. Chodirker BN, Evans JA. Maternal serum AFP screening programs: The Manitoba experience. In: Current practice of prenatal diagnosis in Canada, vol. 13. Ottawa: Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies; 1993:536-610.
6. Dick PT. Periodic health examination, 1996 update: 1: Prenatal screening for and diagnosis of Down syndrome: Canadian Task Force on the periodic health examination. CMAJ. 1996;154:465-479.
7. EUCROMIC Workshop. Proceedings (1996: Paris) Prenatal diagnosis in Europe: Proceedings of an EUCROMIC Workshop, Paris, May 23-24, 1996. Eur J Hum Genet. 1997;5(Suppl 1): 1-90.
8. Gill M, Murday V, Slack J. An economic appraisal of screening for Down syndrome in pregnancy using maternal age and serum alpha feto-protein concentration. Soc Sci Med. 1987;24: 725-731.
9. Green CJ, Hadorn D, Bassett K, Kazanjian A. Routine ultrasound imaging in pregnancy: How evidence-based are the guidelines? Vancouver, BC: BC Office of Health Technology Assessment; 1996:Aug;96:2D.
10. Howe DT, Gornall R, Wellesley D, Boyle T, Barber J. Six year survey of screening for Down's syndrome by maternal age and mid-trimester ultrasound scans. BMJ. 2000;320:606-610.
11. Lee PM, Sroka H. The missing voices in the BC experience of maternal serum screening. A Report. 1999.
12. Lippman A. Embodied knowledge and making sense of prenatal diagnosis. J Genet Counseling. 1999;8:255-274.
13. Merz B. Matchmaking scheme solves Tay-Sacks problem. JAMA. 1987;258:2636-2639.
14. Mitchell L. The routinization of the other: Ultrasound, women and the fetus. In: Basen G, Eichler M, Lippman S, eds. Misconceptions: The social construction of choice and the new reproductive technologies, vol. 2. Hull, Quebec, Canada: Voyageur Press; 1994:146-160.
15. Palomaki GE, Knight GJ, McCarthy JE, Haddow JE, Donhowe JM. Maternal serum screening for Down syndrome in the United States: A 1995 survey. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;176:1046-1051.
16. Permaul-Woods JA, Carroll JC, Reid AJ, et al. Going the distance: The influence of practice location on the Ontario maternal serum screening program. CMAJ. 1999;161:381-385.
17. Press N, Browner C. Characteristics of women who refuse an offer of prenatal diagnosis: Data from the California maternal serum alpha fetoprotein blood test experience. Am J Med Genet. 1998;78:433-445.
18. Press N, Browner C. Collective fictions: Similarities in reasons for accepting maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein screening among women of diverse ethnic and social class backgrounds. Fetal Diagn Ther. 1993;8(Suppl 1):97-106.
19. Rapp R. Accounting for amniocentesis. In: Lindenbaum S, Lock M, eds. Knowledge, power, and practice: The anthropology of everyday life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 1993:55-78.
20. Rapp R. Sociocultural differences in the impact of amniocentesis: An anthropological research report. Fetal Diagn Ther. 1993;8(Suppl 1):90-96.
21. Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. Prenatal Diagnosis for Congenital Anomalies and Genetic Disease. In: Proceed with care. Final report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, vol. 2. 1993:777.
22. Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. Prenatal Diagnosis for Congenital Anomalies and Genetic Disease. In: Proceed with care. Final report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, vol. 2. 1993:804.
23. Sadovnick AD, Baird PA. A cost-benefit analysis of a population screening programme for neural tube defects. Prenat Diagn. 1983;3:117-126.
24. Sadovnick AD, Baird PA. A cost-benefit analysis of prenatal detection of Down's syndrome and neural tube defects in older mothers. Am J Med Genet. 1981;10:367-378.
25. Santalahti P. Literature review. Prenatal screening in Finland: Availability and women's decision-making and experiences. Research report. Stakes National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health; 1994:13.
26. Sheldon TA, Simpson J. Appraisal of a new scheme for prenatal screening for Down's syndrome. BMJ. 1991;302:1133-1136.
27. Smith DK, Shaw RW, Marteau TM. Informed consent to undergo serum screening for Down's syndrome: The gap between policy and practice. BMJ. 1994;309:776.
28. Stephenson P, Mitchell L. Social and cultural determinants of parental experiences with ultrasound detected foetal anomalies. 1998. British Columbia: British Columbia Medical Services Foundation Grant No. BCM98-0012.
29. Tabor A, Madsen M, Obel EB. Randomized controlled trial of genetic amniocentesis in 4606 low-risk women. Lancet. 1986;1:1287-1292.
30. Tudiver S. Manitoba voices: A qualitative study of women's experiences with technology in pregnancy. Prenatal diagnosis: Background and impact on individuals. Ottawa, Ontario: Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies; 1993: 347-460.
31. Wald NJ, Kennard A, Hackshaw A, McGuire A. Antenatal screening for Down's syndrome. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2:1-112.
32. Wald NJ, Watt HC, Hackshaw AK. Integrated screening for Down's syndrome based on tests performed during the first and second trimesters. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:461-467.