Women's preferences in screening for Down syndrome

Prenatal Diagnosis

Volumn 26, Issue 9, 2006, Pages 837-841

  Deverill, Mark ^a   Robson, Stephen ^b  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Down syndrome; Prenatal screening; Women's preferences

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; DOWN SYNDROME; FEMALE; HUMAN; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PREGNANCY TERMINATION; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PRENATAL SCREENING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCREENING; TECHNIQUE;

ADULT; AMNIOCENTESIS; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DOWN SYNDROME; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; NUCHAL TRANSLUCENCY MEASUREMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS;

EID: 33749459468     PISSN: 01973851     EISSN: 10970223     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pd.1517     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Alfirevic Z, Gosden CM, Neilson JP. 2000. Chorion villus sampling versus amniocentesis for prenatal diagnosis. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. (2): CD000055.
2. Bishop AJ, Marteau TM, Armstrong D, et al. 2004. Women and health care professionals' preferences for Down's syndrome screening tests: a conjoint analysis study. BJOG 111: 775-779.
3. Boyd NF, Sutherland HJ, Heasman KZ, Tritchler DL, Cummings BJ. 1990. Whose utilities for decision analysis? Med Decis Making 10: 58-67.
4. Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C, Harper R, Booth A. 1999. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technol. Assess 3(9): 1-164.
5. Caughey AB, Kuppermann M, Norton ME, Washington AE. 2002. Nuchal translucency and first trimester biochemical markers for Down syndrome screening: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 187: 1239-1245.
6. de Graaf IM, Tijmstra T. Bleker OP, van Lith JM. 2002. Womens' preference in Down syndrome screening. Prenat Diagn. 22(7): 624-629.
7. Davies V, Gledhill J, McFadyen A, Whitlow B, Economides D. 2005. Psychological outcome in women undergoing termination of pregnancy for ulrasound-detected fetal anomaly in the first and second trimesters: a pilot study. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 25(4): 389-392.
8. 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(1): 39-46.
9. Furlong W, Feeny DH, Torrance GW, Barr R, Horsman J. 1990. Guide to design and development of health-state utility instrumentation. Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper #90-9. McMaster University: Hamilton, Ontario. Canada.
10. Goel V, Glazier R, Summers A, Holzapfel S. 1998. Psychological outcomes following maternal serum screening: a cohort study. Can Med Assoc J 159: 651-656.
11. 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.
12. Hewison J. 2004. Psychological aspects of integrated testing. BJOG 111: 519-520.
13. Kuppermann M, Shiboski S, Feeny D, Elkin EP, Washington AE. 1997. Can preference scores for discrete states be used to derive preference scores for an entire path of events? An application to prenatal diagnosis. Med Decis Making 17(1): 42-55.
14. Kuppermann M, Feeny D, Gates E, Posner SF, Blumberg B, Washington AE. 1999. Preferences of women facing a prenatal diagnostic choice: long-term outcomes matter most. Prenat Diagn 19: 711-716.
15. Kuppermann M, Nease RF, Learman LA, Gates E, Blumberg B, Washington AE. 2000. Procedure related miscarriages and Down syndrome-affected births: implications for prenatal testing based on women's preferences. Obstet Gynecol 96: 511-516.
16. Marteau TM. 1993. Psychological consequences of screening for Down's syndrome. Br Med J 307: 146-147.
17. Marteau TM, Johnston M, Shaw RW, Michie S, Kidd J, New M. 1989. The impact of prenatal screening and diagnostic testing upon the cognitions, emotions and behaviour of pregnant women. J Psychosom Res 33: 7-16.
18. Mulvey S, Pham T, Tyzack K, Wallace EM. 2002. Women's preferences for reporting of Down syndrome screening results. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 42(5): 504-507.
19. National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health. 2003. Antenatal Care: Routine Care for the Healthy Pregnant Woman. RCOG Press: London; 74-78.
20. Nicolaides KH. 2004. Nuchal translucency and other first-trimester sonographic markers of chromosomal abnormalities. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191: 45-67.
21. Ryan M, Bate A, Eastmond CJ, Ludbrook A. 2001. Use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Qual Health Care 10: 55-60.
22. Snaith V, Howel D, Deverill M, Hewison J, Sturgiss S, Robson S. 2004. The Newcastle randomised controlled trial of early ultrasound screening for fetal abnormality (FA)-termination of pregnancy for FA and psychological consequences. J Obstet Gynaecol 24(Suppl. 1): S19.
23. Statham H, Solomou W, Green JM. 2001. When a Baby has an Abnormality: A Study of Parent's Experiences. Centre for family Research. University of Cambridge; 107-154.
24. Torrance GW. 1986. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. J Health Econ 5: 1-30.
25. UK National Screening Committee. 2002. Antenatal Screening Service for Down Syndrome in England: 2001. UK National Screening Committee Programmes Division: London.
26. Wald NJ, Rodeck C, Hackshaw AK, Rudnicka A. 2004. SURUSS in perspective. BJOG 111: 521-531.
27. Weinans MJ, Huijssoon AM, Tymstra T, Gerrits MC, Beekhuis JR, 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.