Rapid prenatal diagnostic testing for Down syndrome only or longer wait for full karyotype: The views of pregnant women

Prenatal Diagnosis

Volumn 25, Issue 13, 2005, Pages 1206-1211

  Ryan, Mandy ^a   Diack, Jane ^b   Watson, Verity ^a   Smith, Norman ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^c ABERDEEN MATERNITY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Discrete choice experiments; Rapid prenatal diagnosis; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AMNION FLUID ANALYSIS; ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; CHROMOSOME NUMBER; CHROMOSOME STRUCTURE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; DOWN SYNDROME; FEMALE; FETUS KARYOTYPING; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HUMAN; MOLECULAR GENETICS; MONEY; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PERCEPTION; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; UNITED KINGDOM;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AMNIOCENTESIS; CHROMOSOME ABERRATIONS; DOWN SYNDROME; FEMALE; HUMANS; KARYOTYPING; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; PILOT PROJECTS; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; QUESTIONNAIRES; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 31544442164     PISSN: 01973851     EISSN: 10970223     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pd.1309     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Caine A, Maltby A, Parkin C, Waters J, Crolla J, for the UK Association of Clinical Cytogeneticists. 2005. Prenatal detection of Down's syndrome by rapid aneuploidy testing for chromosomes 13, 18 and 21 by FISH or PCR without a full karyotype: a cytogenetic risk assessment. Lancet 366: 123-128.
2. Cederholm M, Axelsson O, Sjoden P-O. 1999. Women's knowledge, concerns and psychological reactions before undergoing an invasive procedure for prenatal karyotyping. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 14: 267-272.
3. Grimshaw G, Szczepura A, Hulten M, et al. 2003. Evaluation of molecular tests for prenatal diagnosis of chromosome abnormalities. Health Technol Assess (Rockv) 7(10): 33-34.
4. Homer J, Bhatt S, Huang B, Thangavelu M. 2003. Residual risk for cytogenetic abnormalities after prenatal diagnosis by interphase fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH). Prenat Diagn 23: 566-571.
5. Levett L, Liddle S, Meredith R. 2001. A large scale evaluation of amnio-PCR for rapid diagnosis of fetal trisomy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 17: 115-118.
6. Maddala G. 1988. Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
7. Mann K, Fox SP, Abbs SJ, et al. 2001. Development and implementation of a new rapid aneuploidy diagnostic service within the UK National Health Service and implications for the future of prenatal diagnosis. Lancet 358: 1057-1061.
8. McIntosh E, Ryan M. 2002. Using discrete choice experiments to derive welfare estimates for the provision of elective surgery: implications of discontinuous preferences. J Econ Psychol 23: 367-382.
9. NEQAS. 2001. National External Quality Assessment Scheme. Annual Report, 2001.
10. Ryan M, Farrar S. 2000. Eliciting preferences for health care using conjoint analysis. Br Med J 320: 1530-1533.
11. Ryan M, Gerard K. 2003. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care: current practice and future prospects. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2: 55-64.
12. Tepperberg J, Pettenati MJ, Rao P, et al. 2001. Prenatal diagnosis using fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH): 2-year multi-centre retrospective study and review of the literature. Prenat Diagn 21: 293-301.
13. UK Department of Health. 2003. Our Inheritance, Our Future: Realising the Potential of Genetics in the NHS. Stationary Office: London.
14. Weinans M, Huijssoon A, Tymstra T, Gerrits M, Beekhuis J, Mantingh A. 2000. How women deal with the results of serum screening for Down syndrome in the second trimester of pregnancy. Prenat Diagn 20: 705-708.