How important is consent in maternal serum screening for Down syndrome in France? Information and consent evaluation in maternal serum screening for Down syndrome: A French study

Prenatal Diagnosis

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 197-205

  Favre, Romain ^a   Duchange, Nathalie ^b,c   Vayssière, Christophe ^a   Kohler, Monique ^a   Bouffard, Nicole ^a   Hunsinger, Marie Chrsitine ^a   Kohler, Anne ^a   Mager, Cécile ^a   Neumann, Muriel ^a   Vayssière, Christine ^a   Viville, Brigitte ^a   Hervé, Christian ^b,c   Moutel, Grégoire ^a,c  

^a SIHCUS CMCO Centre Medico Chirurgical et Obstetrical   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

^c Institut International de Recherche en Ethique Biomédicale IIREB   (France)

Author keywords

Down syndrome; Informed consent; Maternal serum screening; Prenatal diagnosis

Indexed keywords

ADULT; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOWN SYNDROME; FEMALE; FRANCE; HIGH RISK PREGNANCY; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; PATIENT AUTONOMY; PATIENT EDUCATION; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRENATAL SCREENING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; DOWN SYNDROME; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FEMALE; FRANCE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; LOGISTIC MODELS; MASS SCREENING; PATIENT EDUCATION; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 33947362961     PISSN: 01973851     EISSN: 10970223     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pd.1656     Document Type: Review

References (23)

1. Braddock CH, Fihn SD, Levinson W, Jonsen AR, Pearlman RA. 1997. How doctors and patients discuss routine clinical decisions. J Gen Intern Med 12(6): 339.
2. CCNE. 1993. Opinion No37. Opinion on the detection of the risk of foetal trisomy 21 by blood tests in pregnant women. Report. www.ccne-ethique.fr.
3. Dormandy E, Marteau TM. 2004. Uptake of prenatal screening test: the role of health care professionals' attitudes towards the test. Prenat Diagn 24: 864-868.
4. Favre R. 2004. Screening for Down syndrome. Was informed consent realised? DEA in Biological Sciences and Medical Ethics, Deontology and Medical Responsibility. www.ethique.inserm.fr.
5. France. 1995. Decree No. 95-559 of 6 May 1995 concerning cytogenetic and biological analysis used for prenatal diagnosis in utero. Journal official no108, 7362. www.legifrance.gouv.fr.
6. France. 1997. Order of 30 September 1997 on the consent of pregnant women to the carrying out of the analyses referred to in article r. 162-16-1 of the public Health Code. Journal official no31, 15820-15821. www.legifrance.gouv.fr.
7. France. 1999. Order of 11 february 1999 modifying the order of 3 april 1985 establishing the Nomenclature for biological analysis. www.legifrance.gouv. fr.
8. Gekas J, Gondry J, Mazur S, Cesbron P, Thepot F. 1999. Informed consent to serum screening for Down Syndrome: Are women given adequate information? Prenat Diagn 19: 1-7.
9. General Medical Council. Seeking Patient's Consent. The Ethical Considerations. GMC: London; 1999. www.gmc-uk.org.
10. Goel V, Glazier R, Holzapfel S, Pugh P, Summers A. 1996. Evaluating patient's knowledge of maternal serum screening. Prenat Diagn 16: 425-430.
11. Goujard J. 2004. Are there any changes in Down Syndrome prevalence in France following the implementation of the measurement of nuchal translucency and maternal serum screening?. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 32: 496-501.
12. Green JM. 1994. Serum screening for Down's syndrome: experiences of obstetricians in England and Wales. BMJ 309: 769-772.
13. Harris R, Lane B, Harris H, et al. 1999. National confidential enquiry into counselling for genetic disorders by non-geneticists: general recommendations and specific standards for improving care. Br J Obstet Gynecol 106: 658-663.
14. Khnoshnood B, Blondel B, De Vigan C, Bréart G. 2003. Effects of maternal age and education on the pattern of prenatal testing: Implications for the use of antenatal screening as a solution to the growing number of amniocentesis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189(5): 1336-1342.
15. Lane B, Challen K, Harris HJ, Harris R. 2001. Existence and quality of written antenatal screening policies in the United Kingdom: postal survey. BMJ 322(7277): 22-23.
16. Marteau TM, Dormandy E, Michie S. 2001. A measure of informed choice. Health Expect 4: 99-108.
17. Michie S, Smith D, Marteau TM. 1999. Prenatal tests: how are women deciding? Prenat Diagn 19: 743-748.
18. Michie S, Dormandy E, Marteau TM. 2002. The multi-dimensional measure of informed choice: a validation study. Patient Educ Couns 48(1): 87-91.
19. Michie S, Dormandy E, Marteau TM. 2003. Informed choice: understanding knowledge in the context of screening uptake. Patient Educ Couns 50: 247-253.
20. Moutel G, Francois I, Moutard M-L, Herve C. 2002. The Perruce decree, an opportunity to question the acceptance of a handicap and the relationship between physicians, justice and society. Presse Med 31: 632-635.
21. Sadler M. 1997. Serum screening for Down's syndrome: how much do health professionals know? Br J Obstet Gynecol 104: 176-179.
22. Seror V, Costet N, Aymé S. 2000. Information disclosure when screening for trisomy 21: a decision-making aid for pregnant women? J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 29: 492-500.
23. Smith DK, Shaw RW, Marteau TM. 1994. Informed consent to undergo serum screening for Down's syndrome: the gap between policy and practice. BMJ 309: 776-777.