Perceived risk of prenatal diagnostic procedure-related miscarriage and Down syndrome among pregnant women

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 198, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 333.e1-333.e8

  Caughey, Aaron B ^a   Washington, A Eugene ^a,b   Kuppermann, Miriam ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Down syndrome; perceived risk; pregnancy; procedure related miscarriage

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AMNIOCENTESIS; ARTICLE; CHORION VILLUS SAMPLING; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; DOWN SYNDROME; FEMALE; FETUS; FETUS RISK; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH SURVEY; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HUMAN; KARYOTYPING; LANGUAGE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT DECISION MAKING; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RACE DIFFERENCE; RATING SCALE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIAL STATUS; SPONTANEOUS ABORTION;

EID: 39649101300     PISSN: 00029378     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.09.045     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Canadian Collaborative CVS-Amniocentesis Clinical Trial Group. Multicentre randomised clinical trial of chorion villus sampling and amniocentesis. First report. Lancet 333 (1989) 1-6
2. Aalfs C.M., Mollema E.D., Oort F.J., de Haes J.C.J.M., Leschot N.J., and Smets E.M.A. Genetic counseling for familial conditions during pregnancy: an analysis of patient characteristics. Clin Genet 66 (2004) 112-121
3. Marteau T.M., Kidd J., Cook R., et al. Perceived risk not actual risk predicts uptake of amniocentesis. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 98 (1991) 282-286
4. Lloyd A., Hayes P., Bell P.R., and Naylor A.R. The role of risk and benefit perception in informed consent for surgery. Med Decis Making 21 (2001) 141-149
5. Kahneman D., and Tversky A. Subjective probability: a judgment of representativeness. Cog Psychol 3 (1972) 430-454
6. Hoffrage U., and Gigerenzer G. Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences. Acad Med 73 (1998) 538-540
7. Gigerenzer G., and Edwards A. Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. BMJ 327 (2003) 641-644
8. Edwards A., Unigwe S., Elwyn G., and Hood K. Effects of communicating individual risks in screening programmes: Cochrane systematic review. BMJ 327 (2003) 703-709
9. Kuppermann M., Nease Jr. R.F., Gates E., et al. How do women of diverse backgrounds value prenatal testing outcomes?. Prenat Diagn 24 (2004) 424-429
10. Grobman W.A., Dooley S.L., Welshman E.E., Pergament E., and Calhoun E.A. Preference assessment of prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome: is 35 years a rational cutoff?. Prenat Diagn 22 (2002) 1195-1200
11. Kuppermann M., Nease R.F., Learman L.A., Gates E., Blumberg B., and Washington A.E. Procedure-related miscarriages and Down syndrome affected births: Implications for prenatal testing based on women's preferences. Obstet Gynecol 96 (2000) 511-516
12. Kuppermann M., Learman L.A., Gates E., et al. Beyond race or ethnicity and socioeconomic status: predictors of prenatal testing for Down syndrome. Obstet Gynecol 107 (2006) 1087-1097
13. Kuppermann M., Goldberg J.D., Nease Jr. R.F., and Washington A.E. Who should be offered prenatal diagnosis?. The 35-year-old question. Am J Public Health 89 (1999) 160-163
14. Kuppermann M., Gates E., and Washington A.E. Racial-ethnic differences in prenatal diagnostic test use and outcomes: preferences, socioeconomics, or patient knowledge?. Obstet Gynecol 87 (1996) 675-682
15. Caughey A.B., Washington A.E., Gildengorin V., and Kuppermann M. Assessment of demand for prenatal diagnostic testing using willingness to pay. Obstet Gynecol 103 (2004) 539-545
16. Gurmankin A.D., Domchek S., Stopfer J., Fels C., and Armstrong K. Patients' resistance to risk information in genetic counseling for BRCA1/2. Arch Intern Med 165 (2005) 523-529
17. Holloway R.M., Wilkinson C., Peters T.J., et al. Cluster-randomised trial of risk communication to enhance informed uptake of cervical screening. Br J Gen Pract 53 (2003) 620-625
18. Paling J. Strategies to help patients understand risks. BMJ 327 (2003) 745-748