Effect of enhanced information, values clarification, and removal of financial barriers on use of prenatal genetic testing: A randomized clinical trial

JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

Volumn 312, Issue 12, 2014, Pages 1210-1217

  Kuppermann, Miriam ^a,b   Pena, Sherri ^a   Bishop, Judith T ^a   Nakagawa, Sanae ^a   Gregorich, Steven E ^a,b   Sit, Anita ^c   Vargas, Juan ^a   Caughey, Aaron B ^d   Sykes, Susan ^e   Pierce, Lasha ^f   Norton, Mary E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c SANTA CLARA VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e La Clinica de la Raza   (United States)

^f Alameda Alliance for Health   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AMNIOCENTESIS; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; FEMALE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; GENETIC SCREENING; GESTATIONAL AGE; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HUMAN; INTEGRATED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; MATERNAL CARE; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREGNANT WOMAN; PRENATAL SCREENING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RATING SCALE; SPONTANEOUS ABORTION; TRISOMY 21; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; ECONOMICS; HEALTH LITERACY; MULTICENTER STUDY; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; RISK; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

ADULT; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; GENETIC TESTING; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; HEALTH LITERACY; HUMANS; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; RISK;

EID: 84907509249     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: 15383598     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.11479     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Nadler HL, Gerbie A. Present status of amniocentesis in intrauterine diagnosis of genetic defects. Obstet Gynecol. 1971;38(5):789-799.
2. National Institutes of Health. Antenatal diagnosis. NIH Consens Statement. 1979;2(2):11-15. http://consensus.nih.gov/1979/1979AntenatalDx012html.htm. Accessed September 8, 2014.
3. Haddow JE, Palomaki GE, Knight GJ, Cunningham GC, Lustig LS, Boyd PA. Reducing the need for amniocentesis in women 35 years of age or olderwith serummarkers for screening. N Engl J Med. 1994;330(16):1114-1118.
4. van den Heuvel A, Chitty L, Dormandy E, et al. Will the introduction of non-invasive prenatal diagnostic testing erode informed choices? an experimental study of health care professionals. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;78(1):24-28.
5. Press N, Browner CH. Why women say yes to prenatal diagnosis. Soc Sci Med. 1997;45(7):979-989.
6. Kuppermann M, Nease RF, Learman LA, Gates E, Blumberg B, Washington AE. Procedure-related miscarriages and Down syndrome-affected births: implications for prenatal testing based on women's preferences. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;96(4):511-516.
7. Grobman WA, Dooley SL, Welshman EE, Pergament E, Calhoun EA. Preference assessment of prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome: is 35 years a rational cutoff? Prenat Diagn. 2002;22(13):1195-1200.
8. Jaques AM, Collins VR, Muggli EE, et al. Uptake of prenatal diagnostic testing and the effectiveness of prenatal screening for Down syndrome. Prenat Diagn. 2010;30(6):522-530.
9. Roter DL, Erby L, Larson S, Ellington L. Oral literacy demand of prenatal genetic counseling dialogue: predictors of learning. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;75(3):392-397.
10. Driscoll DA, Morgan MA, Schulkin J. Screening for Down syndrome: changing practice of obstetricians. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200(4):459.e1-459.e9.
11. Kuppermann M, Norton ME, Gates E, et al. Computerized prenatal genetic testing decision-assisting tool: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(1):53-63.
12. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin No. 88, December 2007: invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110(6):1459-1467.
13. ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins. ACOG practice bulletin No. 77: screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109(1):217-227.
14. Goel V, Glazier R, Holzapfel S, Pugh P, Summers A. Evaluating patient's knowledge of maternal serum screening. Prenat Diagn. 1996;16(5):425-430.
15. O'Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making. 1995;15(1):25-30.
16. Brehaut JC, O'Connor AM,Wood TJ, et al. Validation of a decision regret scale. Med Decis Making. 2003;23(4):281-292.
17. NortonME, Nakagawa S, Norem C, Gregorich SE, Kuppermann M. Effects of changes in prenatal aneuploidy screening policies in an integrated health care system. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(2 pt 1):265-271.
18. Schafer J. Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data. London, England: Chapman & Hall; 1997.
19. Bass PF III, Wilson JF, Griffith CH. A shortened instrument for literacy screening. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18(12):1036-1038.
20. Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer BK. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(1):37-44.
21. Rubin D. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1987.
22. Li K-H, Meng X-L, Raghunathan TE, Rubin DB. Significance levels from repeated P values with multiply imputed data. Stat Sin. 1991;1:65-92. http://www3.stat.sinica.edu.tw/statistica/j1n1/j1n15/j1n15.htm. Accessed September 8, 2014.
23. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Genetics. Committee opinion No. 545: noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(6):1532-1534.
24. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Genetics. Committee opinion No. 581: the use of chromosomal microarray analysis in prenatal diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(6):1374-1377.