nach oben

Journal of Genetic Counseling

Erschienen in:

01.04.2011 | Original Research

Genetic Testing Likelihood: The Impact of Abortion Views and Quality of Life Information on Women’s Decisions

verfasst von: Jessica L. Wilson, Gail M. Ferguson, Judith M. Thorn

Erschienen in: Journal of Genetic Counseling | Ausgabe 2/2011

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Little is known about factors predicting the likelihood of choosing genetic testing in college aged women versus older women, including knowledge of quality of life (QOL) associated with a disorder. Using vignettes with female college students (Experiment 1: n = 257, mean age = 19.70 yrs) and female faculty/staff/alumni (Experiment 2: n _nulliparous = 83, mean age = 30.20 yrs; n _mothers = 53, mean age = 33.77 yrs), we examined the contribution of multiple factors to predicting genetic testing likelihood for cystic fibrosis. We investigated malleable situational factors (style of genetic risk presentation and providing QOL information including physical and social aspects) and stable dispositional factors (abortion views). Parity (i.e., prior births) was more influential in women’s genetic testing likelihood than was age. Greater acceptability of abortion for oneself and self-assessed knowledge following QOL information were predictors of higher testing likelihood for college students. Greater acceptability of abortion for another person was a predictor for nulliparous women. Abortion views moderated the effect of predictors for nulliparous women and mothers. Findings encourage genetic counselors to utilize QOL information to promote informed decision making through genetic testing.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage.

Aro, A. R., Hakonen, A., Hietala, M., Lonnquvist, J., Niemela, P., Peltonen, L., et al. (1997). Acceptance of genetic testing in a general population: age, education and gender differences. Patient Education and Counseling, 32, 41–49. doi:10.1016/S0738-3991(97)00061-X.PubMedCrossRef

Bane, A., Brown, L., Carter, J., Cote, C., Crider, K., de la Forest, S., et al. (2003). Life and death decision: America’s changing attitudes toward genetic engineering, genetic testing and abortion, 1972–98. International Social Work, 46(2), 209–219. doi:10.1177/0020872803046002006.PubMedCrossRef

Bernhardt, B. A., Haunstetter, C. M., Roter, D., & Geller, G. (2005). How do obstetric providers discuss referrals for prenatal genetic counseling? J. Genetic Counseling, 14(2), 109–117. doi:10.1007/s10897-005-4064-0.CrossRef

Biesecker, B. B. (2001). Goals of genetic counseling. Clinical Genetics, 60, 323–330. doi:10.1034/j.1399-0004.2001.600501.x.PubMedCrossRef

Centers for Disease Control. (1992). Recommendations for the use of folic acid to reduce the number of cases of spina bifida and other neural tube defects. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 41(RR-14), 1–7.

Chaplin, J., Scheweitzer, R., & Perkoulidis, S. (2005). Experiences on prenatal diagnosis of spina bifida or hydrocephalus in parents who decide to continue with their pregnancy. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 14(2), 151–162. doi:10.1007/s10897-005-0488-9.PubMedCrossRef

Chen, L., & Goodson, P. (2007). Factors affecting decisions to accept or decline cystic fibrosis carrier testing/screening: a theory-guided systematic review. Genetics in Medicine, 9(7), 422–450. doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e3180986767.CrossRef

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cystic Fibrosis. (n.d.). In: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cysticfibrosis.

Dillard, J. P., Shen, L., Laxova, A., & Farrell, P. (2008). Potential threats to the effective communication of genetic risk information: the case of cystic fibrosis. Health Communication, 23, 234–244. doi:10.1080/10410230802055356.PubMedCrossRef

Dixon, D. P. (2008). Informed consent or institutionalized eugenics: how the medical profession encourages abortion of fetuses with Down syndrome. Issues in Law and Medicine, 24(1), 3–59.PubMed

Esen, U. I., & Olajide, F. (1997). Expectations and fears of women regarding two methods of prenatal screening. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 57, 193–194. doi:10.1016/S0020-7292(97)02893-2.PubMedCrossRef

Etchegary, H., Potter, B., Howley, H., Cappelli, M., Coyle, D., Graham, I., et al. (2008). The influence of experiential knowledge on prenatal screening and testing decisions. Genetic Testing, 12(1), 115–124. doi:10.1089/gte.2007.0057.PubMedCrossRef

Green, J. M., Hewison, J., Bekker, H. L., Bryant, L. D., & Cuckle, H. S. (2004). Psychosocial aspects of genetic screening of pregnant women and newborns: a systematic review. Health Technology Assessment, 8(33), 1–128.

Jones, O. D. (1997). Evolutionary analysis in law: an introduction and application to child abuse. North Carolina Law Review, 75, 1117–1242.

Jorgensen, F. S. (1995). Declining an alpha-fetoprotein test in pregnancy, why and who? Acta Obstetrica et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 74(1), 3–11. doi:10.3109/00016349509009934.CrossRef

Keller, C., & Siegrist, M. (2009). Effect of risk communication formats on risk perception depending on numeracy. Medical Decision Making 483–409. doi:10.1177/0272989X09333122.

Kenen, R., Smith, A. C. M., Watkins, C., & Zubere-Pittore, C. (2000). To use or not to use: male partners’ perspectives on decision making about pre-natal diagnosis. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 9(1), 33–45. doi:10.1023/A:1009429106757.CrossRef

Kenner, C., Gallo, A. M., & Bryant, K. D. (2005). Promoting children’s health through understanding of genetics and genomics. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 37(4), 308–314. doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.2005.00054.x.PubMedCrossRef

Kuppermann, M., Norton, M. E., Gates, E., Gregorich, S. E., Learman, L. A., Nakagawa, S., et al. (2009). Computerized prenatal genetic testing decision-assisting tool: a randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 113(1), 53–63. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31818e7ec4.

Levenkron, J. C., Loader, S., & Rowley, P. T. (1997). Carrier screening for cystic fibrosis: acceptance and one year follow-up. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 73, 378–386. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-8628(19971231)73:4<378::AID-AJMG2>3.0.CO;2-K.PubMedCrossRef

Loader, S., Caldwell, P., Kozyra, A., Levenkron, J. C., Boehm, C. D., Kazazian, H. H., Jr., et al. (1996). Cystic fibrosis carrier population screening in the primary care setting. American Journal of Human Genetics, 59, 234–247.PubMed

Markens, S., Browner, C. H., & Press, N. (1999). ‘Because of the risks’: how US pregnant women account for refusing prenatal screening. Social Science and Medicine, 49, 359–369. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00097-0.PubMedCrossRef

Marteau, T. M., Kidd, J., Cook, R., Michie, S., Johnston, M., Slack, J., et al. (1991). Perceived risk not actual risk predicts uptake of amniocentesis. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 98(3), 282–286. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1991.tb13394.x.

Marteau, T. M., Saidi, G., Goodburn, S., Lawton, J., Michie, S., & Bobrow, M. (2000). Numbers or words? A randomized controlled trial of presenting screen negative results to pregnant women. Prenatal Diagnosis, 20, 714–718. doi:10.1002/1097-0223(200009)20:9<714::AID-PD906>3.0.CO;2-4.PubMedCrossRef

Miquel-Verges, S., Woods, S. L., Aucott, S. W., Boss, R. D., Sulpar, L. J., & Donohue, P. K. (2009). Prenatal consultation with a neonatologist for congenital anomalies: parental perceptions. Pediatrics, 124(4), e1–e7. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-2865.CrossRef

Morren, M., Rijken, M., Baanders, A. N., & Bensing, J. (2007). Perceived genetic knowledge, attitudes toward genetic testing, and the relationship between these among patients with a chronic disease. Patient Education and Counseling, 65, 197–204. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2006.07.005.PubMedCrossRef

Nananda, F., Ngo, L., Fortin, J. M., Goldberg, R. J., & O’Connor, A. M. (2007). Can computerized decision support help patients make complex treatment decisions? A randomized controlled trial of an individualized menopause decision aid. Medical Decision Making, 27(5), 585–598. doi:10.1177/0272989X07306781.CrossRef

O’Doherty, K., & Suthers, G. K. (2007). Risky communication: pitfalls in counseling about risk, and how to avoid them. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 16(4), 409–417. doi:10.1007/s10897-006-9077-9.PubMedCrossRef

Paglierani, L. M., Kalwarf, H. J., Rosenthal, S. L., Huether, C. A., & Wenstrup, R. J. (2003). The impact of test outcome certainty on interest in genetic testing among college women. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 12(2), 131–149. doi:10.1023/A:1022607223097.CrossRef

Prunty, M. C., Sharpe, L., Butow, P., & Fulcher, G. (2008). The motherhood choice: a decision aid for women with multiple sclerosis. Patient Education and Counseling, 71, 108–115. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2007.10.021.PubMedCrossRef

Sapp, J. C., Hull, S. C., Duffer, S., Zornetzer, S., Suttone, E., Marteau, T. M., et al. (2010). Ambivalence toward undergoing invasive prenatal testing: an exploration of its origins. Prenatal Diagnosis, 30, 77–82. doi:10.1002/pd.2343.PubMed

Skotko, B. (2005). Mothers of children with Down syndrome reflect on their postnatal support. Pediatrics, 115, 64–77. doi:10.1542/peds.2004-0928.PubMed

Tarini, B. A., Singer, D., Clark, S. J., & Davis, M. M. (2009). Parents’ interest in predictive genetic testing for their children when a disease has no treatment. Pediatrics, 124(3), e432–e438. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-2389.PubMedCrossRef

Tercyak, K. P., Bennett Johnson, S., Roberts, S. F., & Cruz, A. C. (2001). Psychological response to prenatal genetic counseling and amniocentesis. Patient Education and Counseling, 43, 73–84. doi:10.1016/S0738-3991(00)00146-4.PubMedCrossRef

Viera, A. J., & Bangdiwala, S. I. (2007). Eliminating bias in randomized controlled trials: importance of allocation concealment and masking. Family Medicine, 39(2), 132–137.PubMed

Wertz, D. C., Sorenson, J. R., & Heeren, T. C. (1986). Clients’ interpretation of risks provided in genetic counseling. American Journal of Human Genetics, 39, 253–264.PubMed

Woltanski, A. R., Cragun, R. T., Myers, M. F., & Cragun, D. L. (2009). Views on abortion: a comparison of female genetic counselors and women from the general population. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 18(28), 28–41. doi:10.1007/s10897-008-9177-9.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Genetic Testing Likelihood: The Impact of Abortion Views and Quality of Life Information on Women’s Decisions
verfasst von: Jessica L. Wilson
Gail M. Ferguson
Judith M. Thorn
Publikationsdatum: 01.04.2011
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Genetic Counseling / Ausgabe 2/2011
Print ISSN: 1059-7700
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-3599
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-010-9335-8

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

17.04.2024 | Postoperative nausea and vomiting | Nachrichten

Update Gynäkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Genetic Testing Likelihood: The Impact of Abortion Views and Quality of Life Information on Women’s Decisions

Abstract

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

Hochrisiko-Eingriffe für postoperative Übelkeit

Adjuvante Brustkrebstherapie: Doppelt hält besser

Manche Gestagene können das Risiko für Meningeome erhöhen

Stillende Frauen haben geringeres kardiovaskuläres Risiko

Update Gynäkologie

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2011

Genetic Counseling for Early-onset Familial Alzheimer Disease in Large Aboriginal Kindred from a Remote Community in British Columbia: Unique Challenges and Possible Solutions

Genetic Counselors’ Experiences with Adolescent Patients in Prenatal Genetic Counseling

“You Have to Sit and Explain it All, and Explain Yourself.” Mothers’ Experiences of Support Services for Their Offspring with a Rare Genetic Intellectual Disability Syndrome

A Tailored Approach to Family-Centered Genetic Counseling for Cystic Fibrosis Newborn Screening: The Wisconsin Model

ABGC Diplomates Certified in 2010

Genetic Risk, Perceived Risk, and Cancer Worry in Daughters of Breast Cancer Patients

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

Hochrisiko-Eingriffe für postoperative Übelkeit

Adjuvante Brustkrebstherapie: Doppelt hält besser

Manche Gestagene können das Risiko für Meningeome erhöhen

Stillende Frauen haben geringeres kardiovaskuläres Risiko

Update Gynäkologie