Are counsellors' attitudes influencing pregnant women's attitudes and decisions on prenatal screening?

Prenatal Diagnosis

Volumn 27, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 518-524

  Van Den Berg, Matthijs ^a   Timmermans, Danielle R M ^a   Kleinveld, Johanna H ^a   Van Eijk, Jacques Th M ^b   Knol, Dirk L ^a   Van Der Wal, Gerrit ^a   Van Vugt, John M G ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Decision making; Nondirectiveness; Prenatal counselling; Prenatal screening

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEMOGRAPHY; DOWN SYNDROME; FEMALE; GENETIC COUNSELING; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MIDWIFE; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PREGNANT WOMAN; PRENATAL SCREENING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE;

ADULT; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; GENETIC COUNSELING; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; NETHERLANDS; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS;

EID: 34347235100     PISSN: 01973851     EISSN: 10970223     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pd.1720     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Ajzen I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50: 179-211.
2. Battels DM, Leroy BS, McCarthy P, Caplan AL. 1997. Nondirectiveness in genetic counseling: a survey of practitioners. Am J Med Genet 72: 172-179.
3. Benkendorf JL, Prince MB, Rose MA, DeFina A, Hamilton HE. 2001. Does indirect speech promote non-directive genetic counseling? Results of a sociolinguistic investigation. Am J Med Genet 106: 199-207.
4. Bernhardt BA, Geller G, Doksum T, Larson SM, Roter D, Holtzman NA. 1998. Prenatal genetic testing: content of discussions between obstetric providers and pregnant women. Obstet Gynecol 91: 648-655.
5. Biesecker BB, Marteau TM. 1999. The future of genetic counselling: an international perspective. Nat Genet 22: 133-137.
6. Biesecker BB, Peters KF. 2001. Process studies in genetic counseling: Peering into the black box. Am J Med Genet 106: 191-198.
7. Conner MT, Sparks P. 1995. The theory of planned behaviour and health behaviours. In Predicting Health Behaviour, Conner MT, Norman P (eds). Open University Press: Buckingham; 121-162.
8. Decruyenaere M, Evers-Kiebooms G, Denayer L, Welkenhuysen M. 1998. Uptake and impact of carrier testing for cystic fibrosis. Community Genet 1: 23-35.
9. Dormandy E, Marteau TM. 2004. Uptake of a prenatal screening test: the role of healthcare professionals' attitudes towards the test. Prenat Diagn 24: 864-868.
10. Dormandy E, Michie S, Hooper R, Marteau TM. 2006. Informed choice in antenatal Down syndrome screening: a cluster-randomised trial of combined versus separate visit testing. Patient Educ Couns 61: 56-64.
11. Farsides B, Williams C, Alderson P. 2004. Aiming towards "moral equilibrium": health care professionals' views on working within the morally contested field of antenatal screening. J Med Ethics 30: 505-509.
12. Frost S, Myers LB, Newman SP. 2001. Genetic screening for Alzheimer's disease: what factors predict intentions to take a test? Behav Med 27: 101-109.
13. Health Council of the Netherlands: Committee on the Population Screening Act. 1999. Population Screening Act: Prenatal Screening and Risk Perception, 1999/04WBO. Health Council of the Netherlands: The Hague.
14. Hodgson J, Spriggs M. 2005. A practical account of autonomy: why genetic counseling is especially well suited to the facilitation of informed autonomous decision making. J Genet Couns 14: 89-97.
15. Hunt LM, de Voogd KB, Castaneda H. 2005. The routine and the traumatic in prenatal genetic diagnosis: does clinical information inform patient decision-making? Patient Educ Couns 56: 302-312.
16. Kleinveld JH, Timmermans DRM, de Smit DJ, Ader HJ, van der Wal G, ten Kate LP. 2006. Does prenatal screening influence anxiety levels of pregnant women? A longitudinal randomised controlled trial. Prenat Diagn 26: 354-361.
17. Lewis SM, Cullinane FN, Bishop AJ, Chitty LS, Marteau TM, Halliday JL. 2006. A comparison of Australian and UK obstetricians' and midwives' preferences for screening tests for Down syndrome. Prenat Diagn 26: 60-66.
18. Michie S, Bron F, Bobrow M, Marteau TM. 1997. Nondirectiveness in genetic counseling: an empirical study. Am J Hum Genet 60: 40-47.
19. Michie S, Dormandy E, French DP, Marteau TM. 2004. Using the theory of planned behaviour to predict screening uptake in two contexts. Psychol Health 19: 705-718.
20. Michie S, Allanson A, Armstrong D, Weinman J, Bobrow M, Marteau TM. 1998. Objectives of genetic counselling: differing views of purchasers, providers and users. J Public Health Med 20: 404-408.
21. Pilnick A, Dingwall R. 2001. Research directions in genetic counselling: a review of the literature. Patient Educ Couns 44: 95-105.
22. Press NA, Browner CH. 1993. Collective fictions - similarities in reasons for accepting maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein screening among women of diverse ethnic and social-class backgrounds. Fetal Diagn Ther 8: 97-106.
23. Press N, Browner CH. 1997. Why women say yes to prenatal diagnosis. Soc Sci Med 45: 979-989.
24. Shiloh S. 1996. Decision making in the context of genetic risk. In The Troubled Helix: Social and Psychological Implications of the New Human Genetics., Marteau TM, Richards M (eds). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge; 82-103.
25. Snijders TAB, Bosker RJ. 1999. Multilevel Analysis. Sage Publications: London.
26. ten Have HA. 2001. Genetics and culture: the geneticization thesis. Med Health Care Philos 4: 295-304.
27. van den Berg M, Timmermans DRM, ten Kate LP, van Vugt JMG, van der Wal G. 2005a. Are pregnant women making informed choices about prenatal screening? Genet Med 7: 332-338.
28. van den Berg M, Timmermans DRM, Kleinveld JH, Garcia E, van Vugt JMG, van der Wal G. 2005b. Accepting or declining the offer of prenatal screening for congenital defects: test uptake and women's reasons. Prenat Diagn 25: 84-90.
29. van Zuuren FJ. 1997. The standard of neutrality during genetic counselling: an empirical investigation. Patient Educ Couns 32: 69-79.
30. Williams C, Alderson P, Farsides B. 2002. Is nondirectiveness possible within the context of antenatal screening and testing? Soc Sci Med 54: 339-347.