Awareness and attitude toward prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities in patients with no access to legal termination of pregnancy

Prenatal Diagnosis

Volumn 26, Issue 10, 2006, Pages 885-891

  Gadow, E ^a   Petracchi, F ^a   Igarzabal, L ^a   Gadow, A ^a   Quadrelli, R ^b   Krupitzki, H ^a  

^a CEMIC   (Argentina)

^b Hospital Italiano Montevideo   (Uruguay)

Author keywords

Chromosome anomalies; Decision making process; Prenatal diagnosis; Termination of pregnancy

Indexed keywords

ABORTION; ADULT; ANAMNESIS; ARTICLE; AWARENESS; CHROMOSOME ABERRATION; CHROMOSOME ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; GENETIC ANALYSIS; GENETIC COUNSELING; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INVASIVE PROCEDURE; LEGAL ASPECT; MATERNAL AGE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL INFORMATION; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PREGNANCY TERMINATION; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ABORTION, EUGENIC; ADULT; CHROMOSOME DISORDERS; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; GENETIC SCREENING; GESTATIONAL AGE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; MALE; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PARENTS; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 33750547124     PISSN: 01973851     EISSN: 10970223     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pd.1510     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Abramsky L, Fletchner O. 2002. Interpreting information: what is said, what is heard-a questionnaire study of health professionals and members of the public. Prenat Diagn 22: 1188-1194.
2. Bekker HL, Hewinson J, Thornton JG. 2004. Applying decision analysis to facilitate informed decision making about prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome: a randomised controlled trial. Prenat Diagn 24: 265-275.
3. Benn PA. 2002. Advances in prenatal screening for Down syndrome: II first trimester testing, integrated testing, and future directions. Clin Chim Acta 324(1-2): 1-11.
4. Britt DW, Risinger ST, Miller V, Mans MK, Krivchenia EL, Evans MI. 2000. Determinants of parental decisions after the prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome: bringing in context. Am J Med Genet 93: 410-416.
5. Brizot ML, Carvalho MH, Liao AW, Reis NS, Armbruster-Moraes E, Zugaib M. 2001. First-trimester screening for chromosomal abnormalities by fetal nuchal translucency in a Brazilian population. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 18(6): 652-655.
6. Cederholm M, Axelsson O, Sjoden PO. 1999. Women's knowledge, concerns and psychological reactions before undergoing an invasive procedure for prenatal karyotyping. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 14(4): 267-272.
7. Clark SL, De Vore GR. 1989. Prenatal diagnosis for couples who would not consider abortion. Obstet Gynecol 73: 1035-1037.
8. Cochran WG. 1977. Sampling Techniques (3rd edn). Wiley: New York.
9. Costanzi E, da Silva ME, Farah LM, Andrade JA, Farah CA. 1987. Alpha fetoprotein in the amniotic fluid of Brazilian pregnant women. Rev Paul Med 105(2): 75-80.
10. De Chieri PR. 1972. Genetic counseling. Arch Argent Pediatr 70(1): 20-25.
11. Evans MI, Wapner RJ. 2005. Invasive prenatal diagnostic procedures 2005. Semin Perinatol 29(4): 215-218.
12. Evans MI, Pryde PG, Evans WJ, Johnson MP. 1993. The choices women make about prenatal diagnosis. Fetal Diagn Ther 8(Suppl. 1): 70-80.
13. Gadow EC, Paz JE, Giménez J, Castilla EE, Mendizábal AF. 1973. Diagnóstico prenatal de anomalías genéticas. Rev Soc Obstet Ginecol B Aires 41: 369-377.
14. Gadow EC, Paz JE, Castilla EE, Rothe DJ, Cederqvist LL. 1976. Prenatal detection of chromosome aberrations after intercontinental transport of amniotic fluid. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 14(2): 164-170.
15. Gogna M, Romero M, Ramos S, Petracci M, Szulik D. 2002. Abortion in a restrictive legal context: the views of obstetrician-gynecologists in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Reprod Health Matters 10: 128-137.
16. Grevengood C, Shulman LP, Dungan JS, Elias S. 1994. Severity of abnormality influences decision to terminate pregnancies affected with fetal neural tube defects. Fetal Diagn Ther 9: 273-277.
17. Halliday J, Lumley J, Watson L. 1995. Comparison of women who do and do not have amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling. Lancet 345: 704-709.
18. 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(11): 1215-1228.
19. Korenromp MJ, Christiaens GCML, van den Bout J, et al. 2005. Long-term psychological consequences of pregnancy termination for fetal abnormality: a cross-sectional study. Prenat Diagn 25: 253-260.
20. Kramer RL, Jarve RK, Yaron Y, et al. 1998. Determinants of parental decisions after the prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. Am J Med Genet 79: 172-174.
21. 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.
22. Kuppermann M, Nease RF Jr, Gates E, et al. 2004. How do women of diverse backgrounds value prenatal testing outcomes? Prenat Diagn 24: 424-429.
23. Malone FD. 2005a. Nuchal translucency-based Down syndrome screening: barriers to implementation. Semin Perinatol 29(4): 272-276.
24. Malone FD, Canick JA, Ball RH, et al. 2005b. First- and second-trimester evaluation of risk (FASTER) research consortium. First-trimester or second-trimester screening, or both, for Down's syndrome. N Engl J Med 353(19): 2001-2011.
25. Mansfield C, Hopfer S, Marteau TM. 1999. Termination rates after prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, spina bifida, anencephaly, and Turner and Klinefelter syndromes: a systematic literature review. European Concerted Action: DADA (Decision-making after the diagnosis of a fetal abnormality). Prenat Diagn 19: 808-812.
26. Marteau TM, Kidd J, Cook R, et al. 1992. Psychological effects of having amniocentesis: are these due to procedure, the risk or the behaviour? J Psychosom Res 36(4): 395-402.
27. Mavrou A, Metaxotou C, Trichopoulos D. 1998. Awareness and use of prenatal diagnosis among Greek women: a national survey. Prenat Diagn 18(4): 349-355.
28. Michie S, Smith D, Marteau TM. 1999. Prenatal tests: how are women deciding? Prenat Diagn 19: 743-748.
29. Minassian DC. 1997. Sample size calculation for eye surveys: a simple method. Community Eye Health 10(23): 42-44.
30. Munthe C. 1996. The Moral Roots of Prenatal Diagnosis. Ethical Aspects of the Early Introduction and Presentation of Prenatal Diagnosis in Sweden. The Royal Society of Arts and Sciences in Gothenburg: Gothenburg.
31. Murray JC. 2003. Genetic drift. Prenatal diagnosis is for the DR, not just for the OR. Am J Med Genet 120A: 594-595.
32. Otano L, Aiello H, Igarzabal L, Matayoshi T, Gadow EC. 2002. Association between first trimester absence of fetal nasal bone on ultrasound and Down syndrome. Prenat Diagn 22: 930-932.
33. Pan American Health Organization. World Health Organization. 1984. Scientific Publication N.° 460.
34. Prieto-Carrasquero M, Molero A, Carrasquero N, et al. 1998. Prenatal diagnosis. I: prenatal diagnosis program at the medical genetics Unit of the Universidad de Zulia, Maracaibo, Venezuela. Invest Clin 39(2): 97-116.
35. Schechtman KB, Gray DL, Baty JD, Rothman SM. 2002. Decision-making for termination of pregnancies with fetal anomalies: analysis of 53,000 pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 99: 216-222.
36. Shoham-Vardi I, Weiner N, Weitzman D, Levcovich A. 2004. Termination of pregnancy: attitudes and behavior of women in a traditional society. Prenat Diagn 24: 869-875.
37. Skotko BG. 2005. Prenatally diagnosed Down syndrome: mothers who continued their pregnancies evaluate their health care providers. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192: 670-677.
38. Tymstra TJ, Bajema C, Beekhuis JR, Mantingh A. 1991. Women's opinions on the offer and use of prenatal diagnosis. Prenat Diagn 11(12): 893-898.
39. United Nations. 2001. World Abortion Policies. United Nations Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs: New York.
40. Wyszynski D, Perandones C, Bennun R. 2003. Attitudes toward prenatal diagnosis, termination of pregnancy, and reproduction by parents of children with nonsyndromic oral clefts in Argentina. Prenat Diagn 23: 722-727.
41. Zlotogora J. 2002. Parental decisions to abort or continue a pregnancy with an abnormal finding after an invasive prenatal test. Prenat Diagn 22: 1102-1106.
42. Zoppi MA, Ibba RM, Putzolu M, Floris M, Monni G. 2001. Nuchal translucency and the acceptance of invasive prenatal chromosomal diagnosis in women aged 35 and older. Obstet Gynecol 97: 916-920.