Information-Sharing to Promote Informed Choice in Prenatal Screening in the Spirit of the SOGC Clinical Practice Guideline: A Proposal for an Alternative Model

Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 269-275

  Vanstone, Meredith ^a,b   Kinsella, Elizabeth Anne ^a   Nisker, Jeff ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^b WESTERN UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Decision making; IDM informative decision making; Informed choice; Prenatal screening; SDM shared decision making

Indexed keywords

ANEUPLOIDY; ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COUNSELING; DECISION MAKING; DELIBERATION; FETAL ANEUPLOIDY; GENETIC COUNSELING; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMATIVE DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL INFORMATION; NON DIRECTIVE COUNSELLING; PATIENT AUTONOMY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRENATAL SCREENING; SHARED DECISION MAKING; CANADA; FEMALE; METHODOLOGY; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; THEORETICAL MODEL;

CANADA; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; GENETIC COUNSELING; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS;

EID: 84862624864     PISSN: 17012163     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)35188-X     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Chitayat D., Langlois S., Wilson R. Genetics Committee of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada; Prenatal Diagnosis Committee of the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists. Prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy in singleton pregnancies. SOGC Clinical Practice Guidelines, No. 261, July 2011. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2011, 33:736-750.
2. Summers A., Langlois S., Wyatt P., Wilson R. Prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy. SOGC Clinical Practice Guidelines, No. 187, February 2007. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2007, 29:146-179.
3. Kirklin D. Framing, truth telling and the problem with non-directive counselling. J Med Ethics 2007, 33:58-62.
4. Williams C., Alderson P., Farsides B. Is nondirectiveness possible within the context of antenatal screening and testing?. Soc Sci Med 2002, 54:339-347.
5. Weil J. Psychosocial genetic counseling in the post-nondirective era: a point of view. J Genet Couns 2003, 12:199-211.
6. Elwyn G., Gray J., Clarke A. Shared decision making and non-directiveness in genetic counselling. J Med Genet 2000, 37:135-138.
7. Emanuel E.J., Emanuel L.L. Four models of the physician-patient relationship. JAMA 1992, 267:2221-2226.
8. Charles C., Gafni A., Whelan T. Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med 1999, 49:651-661.
9. Charles C., Whelan T., Gafni A. What do we mean by partnership in making decisions about treatment?. BMJ 1999, 319:780-782.
10. Charles C., Gafni A., Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med 1997, 44:681-692.
11. Wilson R.D., Davies G., Gagnon A., Desilets V., Reid G., Summers A., et al. Genetics Committee of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Amended Canadian guideline for prenatal diagnosis (2005) change to 2005-techniques for prenatal diagnosis. SOGC Clinical Practice Guidelines, No. 168, November 2005. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2005, 27:1048-1062.
12. Rapp R. Testing women, testing the fetus: the social impact of amniocentesis in America 1999, Routledge, New York.
13. Rothman B.K. The tentative pregnancy: how amniocentesis changes the experience of motherhood 1993, Norton, New York.
14. Parens E., Asch A. Prenatal testing and disability rights 2000, Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC.
15. Press N., Browner C.H., Tran D. Provisional normalcy and "perfect babies": pregnant women's attitudes toward disability in the context of prenatal testing. Reproducing reproduction: kinship, power, and technological innovation 1998, 46. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. S. Franklin, H. Ragone (Eds.).
16. Durand M., Stiel M., Boivin J., Elwyn G. Information and decision support needs of parents considering amniocentesis: interviews with pregnant women and health professionals. Health Expect 2010, 13:125-138.
17. Markens S., Browner C.H., Mabel Preloran H. Interrogating the dynamics between power, knowledge and pregnant bodies in amniocentesis decision making. Sociol Health Illn 2010, 32:37-56.
18. Whitney S.N., Holmes-Rovner M., Brody H., Schneider C., McCullough L.B., Volk R.J., et al. Beyond shared decision making: an expanded typology of medical decisions. Med Decis Making 2008, 28:699-705.
19. Whitney S.N., McGuire A.L., McCullough L.B. A typology of shared decision making, informed consent, and simple consent. Ann Intern Med 2004, 140:54-60.
20. Emery J. Is informed choice in genetic testing a different breed of informed decision-making? A discussion paper. Health Expect 2001, 4:81-86.
21. Thachuk A. Midwifery, informed choice, and reproductive autonomy: a relational approach. Fem Psychol 2007, 17:39-56.
22. Code L. What can she know?Feminist theory and the construction of knowledge 1991, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
23. Sherwin S. No longer patient: feminist ethics and health care 1992, Temple University Press, Philadelphia.
24. Sherwin S. Feminist Health Care Ethics Research Network. The politics of women's health: exploring agency and autonomy 1998, Temple University Press, Philadelphia.
25. McLeod C., Sherwin S. Relational autonomy, self-trust, and health care for patients who are oppressed. Relational autonomy 2000, 314. Oxford University Press, New York. C. Mackenzie, N. Stoljar (Eds.).
26. Wertz D.C., Fletcher J.C. Ethics and human genetics: a cross-cultural perspective 1989, Springer-Verlag, Berlin; New York.
27. Fine B. The evolution of nondirectiveness in genetic counseling and implications of the human genome project. Prescribing our future: ethical challenges in genetic counseling 1993, 101. Aldine de Gruyter, New York. D.M. Bartels, B. LeRoy, A.L. Caplan (Eds.).
28. Kolker A., Burke B.M. Prenatal testing: a sociological perspective 1998, Bergin & Garvey, Connecticut. 2nd.
29. Petersen A. Counselling the genetically 'at risk': the poetics and politics of 'non-directiveness.'. Health Risk Soc 1999, 11(1):253-265.
30. Smets E., van Zwieten M., Michie S. Comparing genetic counseling with non-genetic health care interactions: two of a kind?. Patient Educ Couns 2007, 68:225-234.
31. Garcia E., Timmermans D.R.M., van Leeuwen E. Rethinking autonomy in the context of prenatal screening decision-making. Prenat Diagn 2008, 28:115-120.
32. Hunt L., deVoogd K. Autonomy, danger, and choice: the moral imperative of an "at risk" pregnancy for a group of low-income Latinas in Texas. Risk, culture, and health inequality: shifting perceptions of danger and blame 2003, Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport CT. B. Harthorn, L. Oaks (Eds.).
33. Clarke A. Is non-directive genetic counselling possible?. Lancet 1991, 338:998-1001.
34. Bartels D.M., LeRoy B.S., McCarthy P., Caplan A.L. Nondirectiveness in genetic counseling: a survey of practitioners. Am J Med Genet 1997, 72:172-179.
35. Hodgson J., Hughes E., Lambert C. "SLANG"-Sensitive language and the new genetics-an exploratory study. J Genet Counsel 2005, 14:415-421.
36. Grant R., Flint K. Prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy: a commentary by the Canadian Down Syndrome Society. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2007, 29:580.
37. Brunger F., Lippman A. Resistance and adherence to the norms of genetic counseling. J Genet Couns 1995, 4:151-167.
38. Rantanen E., Hietala M., Kristoffersson U., Nippert I., Schmidtke J., Sequeiros J., et al. What is ideal genetic counselling? A survey of current international guidelines. Eur J Hum Genet 2008, 16:445-452.
39. Cunningham-Burley S., Kerr A. Defining the 'social': towards an understanding of scientific and medical discourses on the social aspects of the new human genetics. Sociol Health Illn 1999, 21:647-668.
40. Stacey M. The new genetics: a feminist view. The troubled helix: social and psychological implications of the new human genetics 1996, 331. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York. T. Marteau, M. Richards (Eds.).
41. Summers A.M. Informed choice in prenatal screening. Can Fam Physician 1994, 40:1688-1691. 1694-7.
42. Michie S., Bron F., Bobrow M., Marteau T.M. Nondirectiveness in genetic counseling: an empirical study. Am J Hum Genet 1997, 60:40-47.
43. Benkendorf J.L., Prince M.B., Rose M.A., De Fina A., Hamilton H.E. Does indirect speech promote nondirective genetic counseling? Results of a sociolinguistic investigation. Am J Med Genet 2001, 106:199-207.
44. Suter S.M. Value neutrality and nondirectiveness: comments on "future directions in genetic counselling.". Kennedy Inst Ethics J 1998, 8:161-163.
45. Caplan A. Neutrality is not morality: the ethics of genetic counseling. Prescribing our future: ethical challenges in genetic counselling 1993, Walter de Gruyer, New York. B. Bartels, B. LeRoy, A. Caplan (Eds.).
46. Greendale K., Pyeritz R.E. Empowering primary care health professionals in medical genetics: how soon? How fast? How far?. Am J Med Genet 2001, 106:223-232.
47. Anderson G. Nondirectiveness in prenatal genetics: patients read between the lines. Nurs Ethics 1999, 6:126-136.
48. Clarke A. The process of genetic counselling. Genetics, society and clinical practice 1997, 179. BIOS Scientific Publishers, Oxford. P. Harper, A. Clarke (Eds.).
49. Kessler S. Psychological aspects of genetic counseling. VII. Thoughts on directiveness. J Genet Couns 1992, 1:9-17.
50. A. Clarke (Ed.). Genetic counselling: practice and principles 1994, Routledge, New York.
51. Kessler S. Psychological aspects of genetic counseling. XI. Nondirectiveness revisited. Am J Med Genet 1997, 72:164-171.
52. Park A., Mathews M. Why do women choose or decline maternal serum screening?. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2009, 31:149-155.
53. Legare F., St-Jaques S., Gagnon S., Njoya M., Brisson M., Fremont P., et al. Prenatal screening for Down syndrome: a survey of willingness in women and family physicians to engage in shared decision-making. Prenat Diagn 2011, 31:319-326.
54. Hunt L.M., de Voogd K.B., Castaneda H. The routine and the traumatic in prenatal genetic diagnosis: does clinical information inform patient decision-making?. Patient Educ Couns 2005, 56:302-312.
55. Freire P. Pedagogy of the oppressed 1993, Continuum, New York. Rev.
56. Bhogal A.K., Brunger F. Prenatal genetic counselling in cross-cultural medicine. Can Fam Physician 2010, 56:993-999.
57. McCarthy Veach P., Bartels D.M., LeRoy B.S. Commentary on genetic counseling-a profession in search of itself. J Genet Couns 2002, 11:187-191.
58. Bower M.A., McCarthy Veach P., Bartels D.M., LeRoy B.S. A survey of genetic counselors' strategies for addressing ethical and professional challenges in practice. J Genet Couns 2002, 11:163-186.
59. Jansen N. Role of the nurse in clinical genetics. Genetics in the clinic: clinical, ethical and social implications for primary care 2001, 133-142. Mosby, St. Louis. M.B. Mahowald (Ed.).