Ambivalence toward undergoing invasive prenatal testing: An exploration of its origins

Prenatal Diagnosis

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 77-82

  Sapp, Julie Chevalier ^a   Hull, Sara Chandros ^a   Duffer, Shelby ^b   Zornetzer, Sarah ^b   Sutton, Erica ^c   Marteau, Theresa M ^d   Biesecker, Barbara Bowles ^a  

^a NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b GENETICS AND IVF INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^d KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Ambivalence; Amniocentesis; Attitudes; Informed choice; Subjective norms

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AMBIVALENCE; AMNIOCENTESIS; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; ETHICS; FEMALE; GENETIC COUNSELING; HUMAN; INTELLIGENCE; INTERVIEW; INVASIVE PROCEDURE; MORALITY; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT DECISION MAKING; PHYSICIAN; PREGNANT WOMAN; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIGION; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; AMNIOCENTESIS; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; PREGNANCY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 75149134929     PISSN: 01973851     EISSN: 10970223     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pd.2343     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Ajzen I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50: 179-211.
2. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 2001. ACOG Practice Bulletin Number 27: Prenatal diagnosis of fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Obstet Gynecol 97(Suppl 1-12):.
3. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 2007. ACOG Practice Bulletin Number 88: Invasive prenatal testing for anueploidy. Obstet Gynecol 110: 1459-1467.
4. Bekker HL, Hewison 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.
5. van Berkel D, van der Weele C. 1999. Norms and prenorms on prenatal diagnosis: new ways to deal with morality in counseling. Patient Educ Couns 37: 153-163.
6. Conner M, Sparks P. 2002. Ambivalence and attitudes. Eur Rev Soc Psychol 12: 37-70.
7. Crano W, Prislin R. 2006. Attitudes and persuasion. Annu Rev Psychol 57: 345-374.
8. Dormandy E, Hankins M, Marteau T. 2006. Attitudes and uptake of a screening test: the moderating role of ambivalence. Psychol Health 21(4): 499-511.
9. Eddleman KA, Malone FD, Sullivan L, et al. 2006. Pregnancy loss rates after midtrimester amniocentesis. Obstet Gynecol 108: 1067-1072.
10. Etchegary H, Potter BK, Howley H, et al. 2008. The influence of experiential knowledge on prenatal screening and testing decisions. Genet Test 12: 115-124.
11. Jackson LG, Zachary JM, Fowler SE, et al. 1992. A randomized comparison of transcervical and transabdominal chorionic-villus sampling. The U.S. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Chorionic-Villus Sampling and Amniocentesis Study Group. N Engl J Med 327: 594-598.
12. Jallinoja P, Hakonen A, Aro AR, et al. 1998. Attitudes towards genetic testing: analysis of contradictions. Soc Sci Med 46: 1367-1374.
13. Lawton R, Conner M, McEachan R. 2009. Desire or reason: predicting health behaviors from affective and cognitive attitudes. Health Psychol 28(1): 56-65.
14. Learman LA, Kuppermann M, Gates E, Nease RF Jr, Gildengorin V, Washington AE. 2003. Social and familial context of prenatal genetic testing decisions: are there racial/ethnic differences? Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 119C: 19-26.
15. Marteau TM, Dormandy E. 2001. Facilitating informed choice in prenatal testing: how well are we doing? Am J Med Genet 106: 185-190.
16. Marteau TM, Dormandy E, Michie S. 2001. A measure of informed choice. Health Expect 4: 99-108.
17. Mason J. 2002. Qualitative Researching. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
18. Michie S, Dormandy E, Marteau TM. 2002. The multi-dimensional measure of informed choice: a validation study. Patient Educ Couns 48: 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. Potter BK, O'Reilly N, Etchegary H, et al. 2008. Exploring informed choice in the context of prenatal testing: findings from a qualitative study. Health Expect 11: 355-365.
21. 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(Suppl 1): 97-106.
22. Press NA, Browner CH. 1997. Why women say yes to prenatal diagnosis. Soc Sci Med 45: 979-989.
23. Rhoads GG, Jackson LG, Schlesselman SE, et al. 1989. The safety and efficacy of chorionic villus sampling for early prenatal diagnosis of cytogenetic abnormalities. N Engl J Med 320: 609-617.
24. Sandelowski M. 2000. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health 23: 334-340.
25. Suter SM. 2002. The routinization of prenatal testing. Am J Law Med 28: 233-270.
26. Vergani P, Locatelli A, Biffi A, et al. 2002. Factors affecting the decision regarding amniocentesis in women at genetic risk because of age 35 years or older. Prenat Diagn 22: 769-774.