How do women of diverse backgrounds value prenatal testing outcomes?

Prenatal Diagnosis

Volumn 24, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 424-429

  Kuppermann, Miriam ^a,b   Nease Jr , Robert F ^c   Gates, Elena ^a,b   Learman, Lee A ^a,b   Blumberg, Bruce ^d   Gildengorin, Virginia ^a,b   Washington, A Eugene ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d KAISER PERMANENTE MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Patient preferences; Prenatal diagnosis; Quality of life

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; ARTICLE; CHILDBIRTH; CHROMOSOME ANALYSIS; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DEMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DOWN SYNDROME; ETHNIC DIFFERENCE; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INDIVIDUALITY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREGNANCY TERMINATION; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; RACE DIFFERENCE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIOECONOMICS; SPONTANEOUS ABORTION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; UNITED STATES;

ABORTION, INDUCED; ABORTION, SPONTANEOUS; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CONTINENTAL POPULATION GROUPS; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DOWN SYNDROME; ETHNIC GROUPS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS;

EID: 3042696865     PISSN: 01973851     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pd.892     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Abuelo DN, Hopmann MR, Barsel-Bowers G, Goldstein A. 1991. Anxiety in women with low maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein screening results. Prenat Diagn 11: 381-385.
2. ACOG. 2001. ACOG Practice Bulletin. Clinical Management Guidelines for Obstetrician-Gynecologists. Prenatal diagnosis of fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Obstet Gynecol 97(5 pt 1): suppl 1-12.
3. Brown GC, Brown MM, Sharma S, et al. 2000. Quality of life associated with diabetes mellitus in an adult population. J Diabetes Complications 14: 18-24.
4. Burton BK, Dillard RG, Clark EN. 1985. The psychological impact of false positive elevations of maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein. Am J Obstet Gynecol 151: 77-82.
5. Campbell TL. 1987. Maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein screening: benefits, risks, and costs. J Fam Pract 25: 461-467.
6. Cuckle H. 2000. Biochemical screening for Down syndrome. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 92: 97-101.
7. Dick PT. 1996. Periodic health examination, 1996 update: 1. Prenatal screening for and diagnosis of Down syndrome. Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. CMAJ 154: 465-479.
8. Druzin ML, Chervenak F, McCullough LB, Blatman RN, Neidich JA. 1993. Should all pregnant patients be offered prenatal diagnosis regardless of age? Obstet Gynecol 81: 615-618.
9. Earley KJ, Blanco JD, Prien S, Willis D. 1991. Patient attitudes toward testing for maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein values when results are false-positive or true-negative. South Med J 84: 439-442.
10. Feeny D, Townsend M, Furlong W, et al. 2002. Health-related quality-of-life assessment of prenatal diagnosis: chorionic villi sampling and amniocentesis. Genet Test 6: 39-46.
11. Froberg DG, Kane RL. 1989. Methodology for measuring healthstate preferences-I: measurement strategies. J Clin Epidemiol 42: 345-354.
12. Gold MR. 1996. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford University Press: New York.
13. Grobman WA, Dooley SL, Welshman EE, Pergament E, Calhoun EA. 2002. Preference assessment of prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome: is 35 years a rational cutoff? Prenat Diagn 22: 1195-1200.
14. Harris RA, Washington AE, Nease RF Jr, Kuppermann M. 2004. Cost utility of prenatal diagnosis and the risk-based threshold. Lancet 363: 276-282.
15. Heckerling PS, Verp MS. 1991. Amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling for prenatal genetic testing: a decision analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 44: 657-670.
16. Heckerling PS, Verp MS. 1994. A cost-effectiveness analysis of amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling for prenatal genetic testing. Med Care 32: 863-880.
17. Heckerling PS, Verp MS, Albert N. 1997. Prenatal testing for limb reduction defects. How patients' views affect their choice of CVS. J Reprod Med 42: 114-120.
18. Heckerling PS, Verp MS, Albert N. 1999. Patient or physician preferences for decision analysis: the prenatal genetic testing decision. Med Decis Making 19: 66-77.
19. Heckerling PS, Verp MS, Hadro TA. 1994. Preferences of pregnant women for amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling for prenatal testing: comparison of patients' choices and those of a decision-analytic model. J Clin Epidemiol 47: 1215-1228.
20. Howard R. 1968. The foundations of decision analysis. IEEE Trans Systems Sci Cybernetics SSC-4: 211-219.
21. Jorgensen FS. 1995. User acceptability of an alpha-fetoprotein screening programme. Dan Med Bull 42: 100-105.
22. Kuppermann M, Feeny D, Gates E, et al. 1999. Preferences of women facing a prenatal diagnostic choice: long-term outcomes matter most. Prenat Diagn 19: 711-716.
23. Kuppermann M, Nease RF, Learman LA, et al. 2000. Procedure-related miscarriages and Down syndrome-affected births: implications for prenatal testing based on women's preferences. Obstet Gynecol 96: 511-516.
24. Learman LA, Kuppermann M, Gates E, et al. 2003. Social and familial context of prenatal genetic testing decisions: Are there racial/ethnic differences? Am J Med Genet 119C: 19-26.
25. Legum C, Shomrat R, Yedwab G, Jaffa AJ, Rudick A. 1986. Early pregnancy screening for neural tube defects in Israel. Isr J Med Sci 22: 210-214.
26. Lubs H, Lubs M. 1972. Indications for amniocentesis. In Antenatal Diagnosis, Dorfman A (ed.). University of Chicago Press: Chicago; 17-27.
27. 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.
28. Marteau TM, Kidd J, Michie S, et al. 1993. Anxiety, knowledge and satisfaction in women receiving false positive results on routine prenatal screening: a randomized controlled trial. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 14: 185-196.
29. Nease RF Jr. 1996. Do violations of the axioms of expected utility theory threaten decision analysis? Med Decis Making 16: 399-403.
30. Nease RF Jr, Kneeland T, O'Connor GT, et al. Ischemic Heart Disease Patient Outcomes Research Team. 1995. Variation in patient utilities for outcomes of the management of chronic stable angina. Implications for clinical practice guidelines. JAMA 273: 1185-1190.
31. NICHD. 1979. Antenatal Diagnosis: Report of a consensus Development Conference Sponsored by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, assisted by the Office for Medical Applications of Research and the Fogarty International Center, March 5-7, 1979, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Department of Health Education and Welfare Public Health Service National Institutes of Health: Bethesda, Md.
32. Ostrove JM, Adler NE, Kuppermann M, Washington AE. 2000. Objective and subjective assessments of socioeconomic status and their relationship to self-rated health in an ethnically diverse sample of pregnant women. Health Psychol 19: 613-618.
33. Pauker SP, Pauker SG. 1987. The amniocentesis decision: ten years of decision analytic experience. Birth Defects Orig Artic Ser 23: 151-169.
34. Richkind KE, Mahoney MJ, Evans MI, Willner J, Douglass R. 1991. Prenatal diagnosis and outcomes of five cases of mosaicism for an isochromosome of 20q. Prenat Diagn 11: 371-376.
35. Spencer K. 2002. Uptake of prenatal screening for chromosomal anomalies: impact of test results in a previous pregnancy. Prenat Diagn 22: 1229-1232.
36. Stein JD, Brown MM, Brown GC, Hollands H, Sharma S. 2003. Quality of life with macular degeneration: perceptions of patients, clinicians, and community members. Br J Ophthalmol 87: 8-12.
37. Sumner W, Nease R, Littenberg B. 1991. U-titer: a utility assessment tool. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care. Washington, DC, 701-705.
38. Torrance GW, Thomas WH, Sackett DL. 1972. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res 7: 118-133.
39. Tosteson AN, Gabriel SE, Grove MR, et al. 2001. Impact of hip and vertebral fractures on quality-adjusted life years. Osteoporos Int 12: 1042-1049.
40. von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. 1944. Theory and Games of Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press: Princeton.
41. Weinstein MC, Fineberg HV. 1980. Clinical Decision Analysis. Saunders: Philadelphia.