Imperfect informed consent for prenatal screening: Lessons from the Quad screen

Clinical Ethics

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 17-27

  Constantine, Melissa L ^a   Allyse, M ^b   Wall, M ^c   De Vries, R ^a,d,e   Rockwood, T H ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

^d ZUYD UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES   (Netherlands)

^e MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^f UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Clinical ethics; Genetic screening; Informed consent

Indexed keywords

EID: 84901436049     PISSN: 14777509     EISSN: 1758101X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1477750913511339     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Caughey AB, Hopkins LM and Norton ME. Chorionic villus sampling compared with amniocentesis and the difference in the rate of pregnancy loss. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108: 612.
2. Benn PA, Ying J, Beazoglou T, et al. Estimates for the sensitivity and false-positive rates for second trimester serum screening for down syndrome and trisomy 18 with adjustment for cross-identification and doublepositive results. Prenat Diagn 2001; 21: 46-51.
3. Sugarman J, McCrory DC, Powell D, et al. Empirical research on informed consent: An annotated bibliography. Hastings Center Rep 1999; 29: s1-s42.
4. Jacoby LH, Maloy B, Cirenza E, et al. The basis of informed consent for BMT patients. Bone Marrow Transplant 1999; 23: 711.
5. Schoonen HM, van Agt HM, Essink-Bot ML, et al. Informed decision-making in prenatal screening for down's syndrome: What knowledge is relevant? Patient Educ Couns 2011; 84: 265-270.
6. Federman DG, Goyal S, Kamina A, et al. Informed consent for PSA screening: Does it happen? Eff Clin Pract 1999; 2: 152-157.
7. Favre R, Moutel G, Duchange N, et al. What about informed consent in first-trimester ultrasound screening for down syndrome? Fetal Diagn Ther 2008; 23: 173-184.
8. Farrell RM, Nutter B and Agatisa PK. Meeting patients' education and decision-making needs for first trimester prenatal aneuploidy screening. Prenat Diagn 2011; 31: 1222-1228.
9. Schoonen M, van der Zee B, Wildschut H, et al. Informing on prenatal screening for down syndrome prior to conception. An empirical and ethical perspective. Am J Med Genet A 2012; 158A: 485-497.
10. Dahl K, Hvidman L, Jørgensen FS, et al. Knowledge of prenatal screening and psychological management of test decisions. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 38: 152-157.
11. Ormond KE, Banuvar S, Daly A, et al. Information preferences of high literacy pregnant women regarding informed consent models for genetic carrier screening. Patient Educ Counsel 2009; 75: 244-250.
12. Michie S, Dormandy E and Marteau TM. The multidimensional measure of informed choice: A validation study. Patient Educ Counsel 2002; 48: 87-91.
13. van den Berg M, Timmermans DR, ten Kate LP, et al. Informed decision making in the context of prenatal screening. Patient Educ Counsel 2006; 63: 110-117.
14. Markens S, Browner C and Press N. 'Because of the risks': How US pregnant women account for refusing prenatal screening. Soc Sci Med 1999; 49: 359-369.
15. McColl E. Cognitive interviewing. A tool for improving questionnaire design. Qual Life Res 2006; 15: 571-573.
16. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL and King NMP. A history and theory of informed consent. USA: Oxford University Press, 1986.
17. Say RE and Thomson R. The importance of patient preferences in treatment decisions-challenges for doctors. BMJ 2003; 327: 542-545.
18. Charles C, Gafni A and Whelan T. Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: Revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med 1999; 49: 651-661.
19. Seror V and Ville Y. Prenatal screening for down syndrome: Women's involvement in decision-making and their attitudes to screening. Prenat Diagn 2009; 29: 120-128.
20. Marteau TM, Dormandy E and Michie S. A measure of informed choice. Health Expect 2001; 4: 99-108.
21. Favre R, Duchange N, Vayssière C, et al. How important is consent in maternal serum screening for down syndrome in france? Information and consent evaluation in maternal serum screening for down syndrome: A french study. Prenat Diagn 2007; 27: 197-205.
22. van den Berg M, Timmermans DR, Knol DL, et al. Understanding pregnant women's decision making concerning prenatal screening. Health Psychol 2008; 27: 430-437.
23. Hunt LM, de Voogd KB and Castañeda H. The routine and the traumatic in prenatal genetic diagnosis: Does clinical information inform patient decision-making? Patient Educ Counsel 2005; 56: 302-312.
24. Press N and Browner CH. Why women say yes to prenatal diagnosis. Soc Sci Med 1997; 45: 979-989.
25. Michie S, Allanson A, Armstrong D, et al. Objectives of genetic counselling: Differing views of purchasers, providers and users. J Public Health 1998; 20: 404.
26. Bernhardt BA, Soucier D, Hanson K, et al. Women's experiences receiving abnormal prenatal chromosomal microarray testing results. Genet Med 2012; 15: 139-145.
27. Benn P, Cuckle H and Pergament E. Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy: Current status and future prospects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 42: 15-33.
28. Agarwal A, Sayres LC, Cho MK, et al. Commercial landscape of noninvasive prenatal testing in the united states. Prenat Diagn 2013; 33: 521-531.
29. Verweij EJ, de Boer MA and Oepkes D. Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis for down syndrome: No paradigm shift, just better testing. and it is already here! Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 40: 484-485.
30. Schmitz D, Netzer C and Henn W. An offer you can't refuse? Ethical implications of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis. Nat Rev Genet 2009; 10: 515.
31. Benn PA and Chapman AR. Ethical challenges in providing noninvasive prenatal diagnosis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2010; 22: 128-134.
32. Benn PA and Chapman AR. Practical and ethical considerations of noninvasive prenatal diagnosis. JAMA 2009; 301: 2154-2156.
33. Dillman DA. Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York, NY: Wiley, 2000.
34. Keeter S, Miller C, Kohut A, et al. Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey. Public Opin Quart 2000; 64: 125-148.
35. Keeter S, Kennedy C, Dimock M, et al. Gauging the impact of growing nonresponse on estimates from a national RDD telephone survey. Public Opin Quart 2006; 70: 759-779.
36. Johnson TP, Cho YI, Campbell RT, et al. Using community-level correlates to evaluate nonresponse effects in a telephone survey. Public Opin Quart 2006; 70: 704-719.
37. Cleary-Goldman J, Morgan MA, Malone FD, et al. Screening for down syndrome: Practice patterns and knowledge of obstetricians and gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107: 11-17.
38. Driscoll DA, Morgan MA and Schulkin J. Screening for down syndrome: Changing practice of obstetricians. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 200: 459. e1-e9.
39. Fisher BM, Varner M and Rose NC. Antenatal screening tests: Knowledge and practice patterns of obstetricians in utah. Am J Med Genet Part A 2006; 140: 2464-2468.
40. Farrell RM, Dolgin N, Flocke SA, et al. Risk and uncertainty: Shifting decision making for aneuploidy screening to the first trimester of pregnancy. Genet Med 2011; 13: 429.
41. Palmer CGS and Sainfort F. Toward a new conceptualization and operationalization of risk perception within the genetic counseling domain. J Genet Counsel 1993; 2: 275-294.
42. Austin JC. Re-conceptualizing risk in genetic counseling: Implications for clinical practice. J Genet Counsel 2010; 19: 228-234.