Meeting patients' education and decision-making needs for first trimester prenatal aneuploidy screening

Prenatal Diagnosis

Volumn 31, Issue 13, 2011, Pages 1222-1228

  Farrell, Ruth M ^a   Nutter, Benjamin ^a   Agatisa, Patricia K ^a  

^a LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Decision making; First trimester aneuploidy screening; Informed consent

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AMNIOCENTESIS; ANEUPLOIDY; ARTICLE; CHORION VILLUS; CHORION VILLUS SAMPLING; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; DOWN SYNDROME; FEMALE; FETUS; FIRST TRIMESTER PREGNANCY; GENETIC SCREENING; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL INFORMATION; PATIENT EDUCATION; PRENATAL SCREENING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS;

ABORTION, LEGAL; ADULT; ANEUPLOIDY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DECISION MAKING; DOWN SYNDROME; FEMALE; GENETIC TESTING; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY TRIMESTER, FIRST; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; QUESTIONNAIRES; RISK;

EID: 82255175608     PISSN: 01973851     EISSN: 10970223     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pd.2867     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). 2011. Committee opinion no. 492: Effective patient-physician communication. Obstet Gynecol 117(5): 1254-1257.
2. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). 2007. ACOG Practice Bulletin 77: Screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Obstet Gynecol 109: 217-227.
3. Benn P, Borrell A, Crossley J, et al. 2011. Aneuploidy screening: a position statement from a committee on behalf of the Board of the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis. Prenat Diagn 31: 519-522.
4. Bernhardt B, Geller G, Doksum T, Larson S, Roter D, Holtzman N. 1998. Prenatal genetic testing: Content of discussion between obstetric provider and pregnant women. Obstet Gynecol 91: 648-655.
5. Breathnach FM, Malone FD. 2007. Screening for aneuploidy in first and second trimesters: Is there an optimal paradigm? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 19: 176-182.
6. Cameron LD, Sherman KA, Marteau TM, Brown PM. 2009. Impact of genetic risk information and type of disease on perceived risk, anticipated affect, and expected consequences of genetic tests. Health Psychol 28: 307-316.
7. Cheuh H, Cheng P, Shaw S, Lin C, Hsu H, Hsieh T. 2007. Maternal anxiety about first trimester nuchal translucency screening and impact of positive screening results. Acta Obst Gyne 86: 1437-1441.
8. Chilaka VN, Konje JC, Stewart CR, Narayan H, Taylor DJ. 2001. Knowledge of Down syndrome in pregnant women from different ethnic groups. Prenat Diagn 21: 159-164.
9. Driscoll DA, Morgan MA, Schulkin J. 2009. Screening for Down syndrome: changing practice of obstetricians. Am J Obstet Gynecol 200(4): 459.e1-e9.
10. Farrell RM, Dolgin N, Flocke SA, Winbush V, Mercer MB, Simon C. 2011. Risk and uncertainty: Shifting decision-making for aneuploidy screening to the first trimester of pregnancy. Genet Med 13: 429-436.
11. Gates EA. 2004. Communicating risk in prenatal genetic testing. J Midwifery Womens Health 49: 220-227.
12. Houben PH, van der Weijden T, Winkens B, Winkens RA, Grol RP. 2010. Pretest expectations strongly influence interpretation of abnormal laboratory results and further management. BMC Fam Pract 11: 13.
13. Khoshnood B, De Vigan C, Blondel B, et al. 2006. Women's interpretation of an abnormal result on measurement of fetal nuchal translucency and maternal serum screening for prenatal testing of Down syndrome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 28: 242-248.
14. Kuppermann M, Norton ME, Gates E, et al. 2009. Computerized prenatal genetic testing decision-assisting tool: A randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 113: 53-63.
15. Lea DH, Kaphingst KA, Bowen D, Lipkus I, Hadley DW. 2010. Communicating genetic and genomic information: Health literacy and numeracy considerations. Public Health Genomics 14: 279-289.
16. Malone FD, Canick JA, Ball RH, et al. 2005. First trimester or second-trimester screening, or both, for Down syndrome. N Engl J Med 353: 2001-2011.
17. Marteau TM, Dormandy E. 2001. Facilitating informed choice in prenatal testing: How well are we doing? Am J Med Genet 106: 185-190.
18. Marteau TM, Dormandy E, Michie S. 2001. A measure of informed choice. Health Expect 4: 99-108.
19. Nagle C, Gunn J, Bell R, et al. 2008. Use of a decision aid for prenatal testing of fetal abnormalities to improve women's informed decision-making: A cluster randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN22532458]. BJOG 115: 339-347.
20. National Quality Forum (NQF). 2005. Improving patient safety through informed consent for patients with limited health literacy: An implementation report. National Quality Forum: Washington DC; 1-29.
21. Nicolaides KH. 2004. Nuchal translucency and other first trimester sonographic markers of chromosomal abnormalities. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191: 45-67.
22. Reddy UM, Mennuti MT. 2006. Incorporating first trimester Down syndrome studies into prenatal screening: Executive summary of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development workshop. Obstet Gynecol 107: 167-173.
23. Reddy UM, Wapner RJ. 2007. Comparison of first and second trimester aneuploidy risk assessment. Clin Obstet Gynecol 50: 442-453.
24. Saller DN, Jr, Canick JA. 2008. Current methods of prenatal screening for Down syndrome and other fetal abnormalities. Clin Obstet Gynecol 51: 24-36.
25. Spencer K. 2007. Aneuploidy screening in the first trimester. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 145: 18-32.
26. Van den Berg M, Timmermans DR, Ten Kate LP, van Vugt JM, van der Wal G. 2005. Are pregnant women making informed choices about prenatal screening? Genet Med 7: 332-338.
27. Wicklund C. 2009. Patient education and communication. In Institute of Medicine (US) Roundtable on Translating Genomic-Based Research for Health. Innovations in the Service Delivery in the Age of Genomics: Workshop Summary. National Academies Press: Washington, D.C.; 12-16.