The scope of prenatal diagnosis for women at increased risk for aneuploidies: Views and preferences of professionals and potential users

Journal of Community Genetics

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 125-135

  De Jong, Antina ^a,b,c   Dondorp, Wybo J ^a,b   Krumeich, Anja ^a,b   Boonekamp, Julie ^a   Van Lith, Jan M M ^d   De Wert, Guido M W R ^a,b,c  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c CSG Centre for Society and the Life Sciences   (Netherlands)

^d LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Ethical issues; Preferences; Prenatal screening; Qualitative research; Reproductive choice; Views

Indexed keywords

ANEUPLOIDY; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE GENOMIC HYBRIDIZATION; FEMALE; GENETIC SCREENING; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; KARYOTYPING; MALE; MATERNAL ATTITUDE; PARENTAL ATTITUDE; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH;

EID: 84872416368     PISSN: 1868310X     EISSN: 18686001     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12687-012-0126-9     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. ACOG The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2009) Array comparative genomic hybridization in prenatal diagnosis. Committee Opinion. Obstet Gynecol 114:1161-1163
2. Ahmed S, Bryant LD, Tizro Z, Shickle D (2012) Interpretations of informed choice in antenatal screening: a cross-cultural, Q-methodology study. Soc Sci Med 74:997-1004
3. Aune I, Möller A (2012) 'I want a choice, but I don't want to decide' - a qualitative study of pregnant women's experiences regarding early ultrasound risk assessment for chromosomal anomalies. Midwifery 28:14-23
4. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (2009) Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press, New York
5. Bianchi D, Platt L, Goldberg JD, Abuhamad A, Sehnert A, Rava R (2012) Genome-wide fetal aneuploidy detection by maternal plasma DNA sequencing. Obstet Gynecol 119:890-901
6. Boormans EA (2010) Rapid aneuploidy detection in prenatal diagnosis. The clinical use of multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. Buijten & Schipperheijn, Amsterdam
7. Boormans E, Birnie E, Bilardo C, Oepkes D, Bonsel G, van Lith J (2009) Karyotyping or rapid aneuploidy detection in prenatal diagnosis? The different views of users and providers of prenatal care. BJOG 116:1396-1399
8. Boormans E, Birnie E, Oepkes D, Boekkooi P, Bonsel G, van Lith J et al (2010) Individualized choice in prenatal diagnosis: the impact of karyotyping and standalone rapid aneuploidy detection on quality of life. Prenat Diagn 30:928-936
9. Bui TH, Vetro A, Zuffardi O, Shaffer LG (2011) Current controversies in prenatal diagnosis 3: is conventional chromosome analysis necessary in the post-array CGH era? Prenat Diagn 31:235-243
10. Caughey A, Washington A, Kuppermann M (2008) Perceived risk of prenatal diagnostic procedure-related miscarriage and Down syndrome among pregnant women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 198:331-338
11. Chiu R, Akolekar R, Zheng Y, Leung T, Sun H, Chan K et al (2011) Non-invasive prenatal assessment of trisomy 21 by multiplexed maternal plasma DNA sequencing: large scale validity study. Br Med J 342:c7401
12. Choy K, Setlur S, Lee C, Lau T (2010) The impact of human copy number variation on a new era of genetic testing. BJOG 117:391-398
13. de Jong A, Dondorp W, de Wert G (2009) The scope of prenatal diagnostic testing for chromosomal aberrations: broad or narrow? Ethical considerations on the choice of tests. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 153:A1060 (In Dutch)
14. de Jong A, Dondorp W, Timmermans D, van Lith J, de Wert G (2011) Rapid aneuploidy detection or karyotyping? Ethical reflection. Eur J Hum Genet 19:1020-1025
15. Dworkin G (1988) The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
16. Emanuel E, Emanuel L (1992) Four models of the physician-patient relationship. JAMA 267:2221-2226
17. Faas B, van der Burgt I, Kooper A, Pfundt R, Hehir-Kwa J, Smits A et al (2010) Identification of clinically significant, submicroscopic chromosome alterations and UPD in fetuses with ultrasound anomalies using genome-wide 250 k SNP array analysis. J Med Genet 47:586-594
18. Faas BHW, Cirigliano V, Bui TH (2011) Rapid methods for targeted prenatal diagnosis of common chromosome aneuploidies. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 16:81-87
19. Fan HC, Gu W, Wang J, Blumenfeld YJ, El-Sayed YY, Quake SR (2012) Non-invasive prenatal measurement of the fetal genome. Nature 487:320-324
20. García E, Timmermans D, van Leeuwen E (2009) Reconsidering prenatal screening: an empirical-ethical approach to understand moral dilemmas as a question of personal preferences. J Med Ethics 35:410-414
21. Grimshaw G, Szczepura A, Hultén M, MacDonald F, Nevin N, Sutton F et al (2003) Evaluation of molecular tests for prenatal diagnosis of chromosome abnormalities. Health Technol Assess 7:1-146
22. Hathaway F, Burns E, Ostrer H (2009) Consumers' desire towards current and prospective reproductive genetic testing. J Genet Couns 18:137-146
23. Health Council of the Netherlands (2008) Screening: between hope and hype. Health Council of the Netherlands, The Hague. Publication no. 2008/05. Available at: http://www.gezondheidsraad.nl/sites/default/files/200805E-0.pdf
24. Hillman S, Pretlove S, Coomarasamy A, McMullan D, Davison E, Maher E et al (2011) Additional information from array comparative genomic hybridization technology over conventional karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 37:6-14
25. Kupperman M, Norton M (2005) Prenatal testing guidelines: time for a new approach. Gynecol Obstet Invest 60:6-10
26. Lo YMD, Chan KCA, Sun H, Chen EZ, Jiang PF, Lun FM (2010) Maternal plasma DNA sequencing reveals the genome-wide genetic and mutational profile of the fetus. Sci Transl Med 2:61-91
27. Locock L, Alexander J (2006) 'Just a bystander'? Men's place in the process of fetal screening and diagnosis. Soc Sci Med 62:1349-1359
28. Lumley M, Zamerowski S, Jackson L, Dukes K, Sullivan L (2006) Psychosocial correlates of pregnant women's attitudes toward prenatal maternal serum screening and invasive diagnostic testing: beyond traditional risk status. Genet Test 10:131-138
29. Marteau TM, Dormandy E (2001) Facilitating informed choice in prenatal testing: how well are we doing? Am J Med Genet 106:185-190
30. Mays N, Pope C (1995) Qualitative research: rigour and qualitative research. Br Med J 311:109-112
31. Morse J (2000) Determining sample size. Qual Health Res 21:3-5
32. O'Connor A, Jacobsen M, Stacey D (2002) An evidence-based approach to managing women's decisional conflict. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 31:570-581
33. Pieters J, Kooper A, Smits A, de Vries J (2009) Parent's attitudes towards full-scale prenatal testing for genetic disorders. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 30:42-47
34. Polit D, Beck CT (2004) Nursing research: principles and methods. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia
35. Potter B, O'Reilly N, Etchegary H, Howley H, Graham I, Walker M et al (2008) Exploring informed choice in the context of prenatal testing: findings from a qualitative study. Health Expect 11:355-365
36. Press N (2005) Qualitative research: thoughts on how to do it; how to judge it; when to use it. Genet Med 7:155-158
37. Salomon L, Alfirevic Z, Berghella V, Bilardo C, Hernandez-Andrade E, Johnsen S et al (2011) Practice guidelines for performance of the routine mid-trimester fetal ultrasound scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 37:16-126
38. Savage M, Mourad M, Wapner R (2011) Evolving applications of microarray analysis in prenatal diagnosis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 23:103-108
39. Shaffer LG, Coppinger J, Alliman S, Torchia BA, Theisen A, Ballif BC et al (2008) Comparison of microarray-based detection rates for cytogenetic abnormalities in prenatal and neonatal specimens. Prenat Diagn 28:789-795
40. Shuster E (2007) Microarray genetic screening: a prenatal roadblock for life? Lancet 369:526-529
41. Strauss A, Corbin J (1998) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications, London
42. Tapon D (2010) Prenatal testing for Down syndrome: comparison of screening practices in the UK and USA. J Genet Couns 19:112-130
43. Tymstra T (2007) 'At least we tried everything': about binary thinking, anticipated decision regret, and the imperative character of medical technology. J Psychosom Obste Gynecol 28:131
44. Ulin PR, Robinson ET, Tolley EE (2005) Qualitative methods in public health. A field guide for applied research. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
45. Van den Veyver I, Patel A, Shaw C, Pursley A, Kang S, Simovich M et al (2009) Clinical use of array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) for prenatal diagnosis in 300 cases. Prenat Diagn 29:29-39
46. Wertz D, Fletcher J, Berg K, On behalf of the World Health Organization (2003) Review of ethical issues in medical genetics. World Health Organization, Geneva
47. Williams R, Dheensa S, Metcalfe A (2011) Men's involvement in antenatal screening: a qualitative pilot study using e-mail. Midwifery 27:861-866