Decision-making for prenatal genetic screening: how will pregnant women navigate a growing number of aneuploidy and carrier screening options?

被引:5
|
作者
Farrell, Ruth M. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Pierce, Madelyn [1 ]
Collart, Christina [1 ]
Yao, Meng [4 ]
Coleridge, Marissa [1 ,2 ]
Chien, Edward K. [1 ]
Rose, Susannah S. [5 ]
Lintel, Mary [1 ]
Perni, Uma [1 ]
Edmonds, Brownsyne Tucker [6 ]
机构
[1] Cleveland Clin, OB GYN & Womens Hlth Inst, 9500 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH 44195 USA
[2] Cleveland Clin, Genom Med Inst, Cleveland, OH 44106 USA
[3] Cleveland Clin, Ctr Bioeth, Cleveland, OH 44106 USA
[4] Cleveland Clin, Quantitat Hlth Sci Dept, Cleveland, OH 44106 USA
[5] Cleveland Clin, Clin Transformat, Off Patient Experience, Cleveland, OH 44106 USA
[6] Indiana Univ, Dept OB GYN, Indianapolis, IN USA
关键词
Prenatal aneuploidy screening; Prenatal carrier screening; Decision-making; Patient education; Genomics; PRECONCEPTION CARE; POSITION STATEMENT; MEDICAL-GENETICS; AMERICAN-COLLEGE; INFORMED-CONSENT; OBSTETRIC CARE; UNITED-STATES; BARRIERS; KNOWLEDGE; IMPLEMENTATION;
D O I
10.1186/s12884-021-04282-7
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Background Prenatal genetic screens, including carrier screening (CS) and aneuploidy screening (AS), comprise an important component of reproductive healthcare delivery. Clinical practice guidelines emphasize the importance of informed decision-making and patient's preferences regarding the use of these screens. Yet, it is unclear how to achieve this ideal as prenatal genetic screening options rapidly become more complex and increasingly available to patients. With increased complexity and availability of reproductive testing options, decision-support strategies are critical to prepare patients to consider AS and/or CS. Methods A self-administered survey evaluated knowledge and decision-making preferences for expanded carrier (CS) and aneuploidy (AS) prenatal screening. The survey was administered to participants before their first prenatal visit to assess baseline decision-making needs and preference at the initiation of prenatal care. Analysis was approached as a descriptive process. Results Participants had similar familiarity with the concepts associated with AS compared to CS; mean knowledge scores for CS was 0.59 [possible range 0.00 to 1.00] and 0.55 for AS. Participants reported preferences to learn about a range of conditions, including those with severe or mild impact, childhood-onset, and adult-onset. Decision-making preference with respect to learning about the associated disease phenotypes for the contained on AS and CS panel shifted with the complexity of the panel, with a greater preference to learn about conditions post-test compared pre-test education as panels increased from 5 to 100 conditions. Conclusion Patients' baseline knowledge of prenatal genetic screens coupled with evolving decision-making preferences presents challenges for the delivery of prenatal genetic screens. This calls for the development and implementation of innovative approaches to support pregnant patients' decision-making commensurate with advances in prenatal genomics.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Decision-Making Regarding Mammography Screening for Older Women
    Schonberg, Mara A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, 2016, 64 (12) : 2413 - 2418
  • [22] What understanding of decision-making in prenatal screening could decision analysis provide?
    Seror, V.
    [J]. ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2007, 30 (07) : 921 - 923
  • [23] Educational tools support informed decision-making for genetic carrier screening in a heterogenic Israeli population
    Chen Gafni-Amsalem
    Olfat Aboleil-Zoubi
    Elena Chervinsky
    Ola Aleme
    Morad Khayat
    Husam Bashir
    Lilach Peled Perets
    Efrat Mamluk
    Shadia Hakrosh
    Shoshi Kurtzman
    Liron Tamir
    Ayelet Baram-Tsabari
    Stavit A. Shalev
    [J]. Journal of Community Genetics, 2024, 15 : 137 - 146
  • [24] Educational tools support informed decision-making for genetic carrier screening in a heterogenic Israeli population
    Gafni-Amsalem, Chen
    Aboleil-Zoubi, Olfat
    Chervinsky, Elena
    Aleme, Ola
    Khayat, Morad
    Bashir, Husam
    Perets, Lilach Peled
    Mamluk, Efrat
    Hakrosh, Shadia
    Kurtzman, Shoshi
    Tamir, Liron
    Baram-Tsabari, Ayelet
    Shalev, Stavit A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY GENETICS, 2024, 15 (02) : 137 - 146
  • [25] Health professional observations of the Joint Decision-Making Process for Prenatal Screening
    Hoving, Ciska
    Schutgens-Kok, Esther
    Jansen, Jesse
    Nieuwenhuijze, Marianne
    van Osch, Liesbeth
    [J]. PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2023, 109 : 141 - 141
  • [26] Alternative option labeling impacts decision-making in noninvasive prenatal screening
    Fisher, Camille F.
    Birkeland, Laura E.
    Reiser, Catherine A.
    Zhao, Qianqian
    Palmer, Christina G. S.
    Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J.
    Petty, Elizabeth M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GENETIC COUNSELING, 2020, 29 (06) : 910 - 918
  • [27] Development and pilot study of the prenatal informed decision-making (PRENID)-scale: a measure for informed decision-making in first trimester prenatal screening
    Bakkeren, I. M.
    Polak, M. G.
    Kisters, F. K. C.
    Galjaard, R. H.
    Tibben, A.
    Riedijk, S. R.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS, 2019, 27 : 708 - 709
  • [28] First trimester screening versus diagnostic testing; how important is prenatal counseling in the decision-making process?
    Wong, Amy
    Blumenfeld, Yair
    Lyell, Deirdre
    Ormond, Kelly
    Chueh, Jane
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2009, 201 (06) : S253 - S253
  • [29] Can the four principles help in genetic screening decision-making?
    Mallia, P
    ten Have, H
    [J]. HEALTH CARE ANALYSIS, 2003, 11 (02) : 131 - 140
  • [30] Can the Four Principles Help in Genetic Screening Decision-Making?
    Pierre Mallia
    Henk ten Have
    [J]. Health Care Analysis, 2003, 11 : 131 - 140