Psychological aspects of individualized choice and reproductive autonomy in prenatal screening

Bioethics

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 9-18

  Hewison, Jenny ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Individualized choice; Prenatal screening; Women's perspectives

Indexed keywords

ABORTION; ABORTION, SPONTANEOUS; ADULT; ADVERSE EFFECTS; CONGENITAL ABNORMALITIES; DECISION MAKING; DOWN SYNDROME; EMOTION; ETHICS; FEMALE; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETICS; HUMAN; INFORMATION SEEKING; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; PARENT; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; PREGNANCY; PREGNANT WOMAN; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY; PUBLIC HEALTH; REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR; TRENDS; UNITED KINGDOM;

ABORTION, EUGENIC; ABORTION, SPONTANEOUS; ADULT; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CONGENITAL ABNORMALITIES; DECISION MAKING; DOWN SYNDROME; EMOTIONS; FEMALE; GENETIC TESTING; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; INDIVIDUALIZED MEDICINE; INFORMATION SEEKING BEHAVIOR; PARENTS; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PREGNANCY; PREGNANT WOMEN; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PUBLIC HEALTH; REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR; STATE MEDICINE;

EID: 84918549432     PISSN: 02699702     EISSN: 14678519     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12124     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. J.M. Green, J. Hewison, H.L. Bekker, L.D. Bryant & H.S. Cuckle. Psychosocial aspects of genetic screening of pregnant women and newborns: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2004; 8(33): 1-128.
2. J.M. Harris, L. Franck & S. Michie. Assessing the psychological effects of prenatal screening tests for maternal and foetal conditions: a systematic review. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2012; 30: 222-246.
3. M.Van den Berg, D.R. Timmermans, D.L. Knol, J.T.M. van Eijk, D.J. de Smit, J.M. van Vugt, et al. Understanding pregnant women's decision making concerning prenatal screening. Health Psychol 2008; 27: 430-437.
4. M. Siegrist, P. Orlow & C. Keller. The effect of graphical and numerical presentation of hypothetical prenatal diagnosis results on risk perception. Med Decis Making 2008; 28: 567-574.
5. A. Edwards, J. Gray, A. Clarke, J. Dundon, G. Elwyn, C. Gaff, et al. Interventions to improve risk communication in clinical genetics: systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2008; 71: 4-25.
6. J. Hewison & L. Bryant. Informed consent: what should we be doing? In: Kehoe S., Chitty L., Homfray T., editors. Reproductive Genetics (Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists 57th Study Group). London: RCOG Press; 2009. p. 205-216.
7. P.M. Bossuyt, L. Irwig, J. Craig & P. Glasziou. Comparative accuracy: assessing new tests against existing diagnostic pathways. BMJ 2006; 332(7549): 1089-1092.
8. A. Hayen, P. Macaskill, L. Irwig & P. Bossuyt. Appropriate statistical methods are required to assess diagnostic tests for replacement, add-on, and triage. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63: 883-891.
9. K.H. Nicolaides, F.A. Chervenak, L.B. McCullough, K. Avgidou & A. Papageorghiou. Evidence-based obstetric ethics and informed decision-making by pregnant women about invasive diagnosis after first-trimester assessment of risk for trisomy 21. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 193: 322-326.
10. J.M.E. Walsh & J.D. Goldberg. Fetal aneuploidy detection by maternal plasma DNA sequencing: a technology assessment. Prenat Diagn. 2013; 33: 514-520.
11. UKNational Screening Committee (UK NSC). 2013. Public Information Briefing - Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (for Down's syndrome). London: UK NSC. Available at: http://fetalanomaly.screening.nhs.uk/programmestatements [Accessed 25 April 2014].
12. R. Daley, M. Hill, C. Lewis & L. Chitty. Non-invasive prenatal testing for Down's syndrome - where are we now? B J Midwifery 2014; 22: 85-93.
13. UK Clinical Research Network (UK CRN). 2013. NIPT for aneuploid evaluation study. Leeds: UK CRN. Available at: public.ukcrn.org.uk/search/StudyDetail.aspx?StudyID=13865 (accessed 25 April 2014).
14. UK Clinical Research Network (UK CRN). 2013. First-trimester cfDNA testing. Leeds: UK CRN. Available at: public.ukcrn.org.uk/Search/StudyDetail.aspx?StudyID=15084 (accessed 25 April 2014).
15. J.M. Green, C. Snowdon & H. Statham. Pregnant women's attitudes to abortion and prenatal screening. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 1993; 1: 31-39.
16. K. Spencer, A.W.J. Liao, H. Skentou, S. Cicero & K.H. Nicolaides. Screening for triploidy by fetal nuchal translucency and maternal serum free ß-hCG and PAPP-A at 10-14 weeks of gestation. Prenat Diagn. 2000; 20: 495-499.
17. Y.M.D. Lo, K.C.A. Chan, H. Sun, E.Z. Chen, P. Jiang, F.M.F. Lun, et al. Maternal plasma DNA sequencing reveals the genome-wide genetic and mutational profile of the fetus. Sci. Transl. Med. 2010; 2: 61ra91.
18. W.C. Leung & T.T. Lao. Rapid aneuploidy testing, traditional karyotyping, or both? Lancet 2005; 366(9480): 97-98.
19. N. Lench, A. Barrett, S. Fielding, F. McKay, M. Hill, L. Jenkins, et al. The clinical implementation of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis for single gene disorders: challenges and progress made. Prenat Diagn. 2013; 33: 555-562.
20. A. Srinivasan, D.W. Bianchi, H. Huang, A.J. Sehnert & R.P. Rava. Noninvasive detection of fetal subchromosome abnormalities via deep sequencing of maternal plasma. Am J Hum Genet. 2013; 92: 167-176.
21. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). 2013. PGD conditions licensed by the HFEA. London: HFEA. Available at: http://www.hfea.gov.uk/cps/hfea/gen/pgd-screening.htm [Accessed 25 April 2014].
22. C. Mansfield, S. Hopfer & T.M. Marteau. Termination rates after prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, spina bifida, anencephaly and Turner and Klinefelter syndromes: a systematic literature review. Prenat Diagn. 1999; 19: 808-812.
23. B.L. Shaffer, A.B. Caughey & M.E. Norton. Variation in the decision to terminate pregnancy in the setting of fetal aneuploidy. Prenat Diagn. 2006; 26: 667-671.
24. A. de Jong, W.J. Dondorp, C.E. de Die-Smulders, S.G. Frints & G.M. de Wert. Non-invasive prenatal testing: ethical issues explored. Eur J Hum Genet. 2009; 18: 272-277.
25. J. Hewison, J. Green, S. Ahmed, H. Cuckle, J. Hirst, C. Hucknall & J. Thornton. Attitudes to prenatal testing and termination of pregnancy for 30 different conditions: a comparison of white and Pakistani women in the UK. Prena Diagn 2007; 27: 419-430.
26. NHS Fetal Anomaly Screening Programme (NHS FASP). Revised 2010. Having a mid pregnancy ultrasound scan? London: NHS FASP. Available at: http://fetalanomaly.screening.nhs.uk/leafletsforparents [Accessed 25 April 2014].
27. Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee (WHSSC). 2013. Pre-implantation Diagnosis. Cardiff: WHSSC. Available at: http:// www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/Documents/898/CP37%20Pre-implantation %20Genetic%20Diagnosis%20policy%20v4.0.pdf [Accessed 25 April 2014].
28. Genetic Alliance UK. 2012. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD). London: Genetic Alliance. Available at: http://www.geneticalliance.org.uk/aboutpgd.htm#Question4 [Accessed 25 April 2014].
29. C. Miller, J. Hewison & S.A. Morley. Comparison of decisions about prenatal diagnosis and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2012; 30: 377-387.
30. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). 2013. HFEA sends finalised mitochondria consultation report and advice to Government. London: HFEA. Available at: http://www.hfea.gov.uk/ 7796.html. [Accessed 25 April 2014].
31. UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC). 2014. The UK NSC policy on Trisomy 18 and Trisomy 13 Syndromes (policy currently in consultation). London: UK NSC. Available at: http://www.screening.nhs.uk/t18andt13 [Accessed 25 April 2014].