nach oben

Journal of Genetic Counseling

Erschienen in:

01.02.2013 | Original Research

Prenatal Genetic Testing: An Investigation of Determining Factors Affecting the Decision-Making Process

verfasst von: Monica Pivetti, Giannino Melotti

Erschienen in: Journal of Genetic Counseling | Ausgabe 1/2013

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Despite the increase in popularity of prenatal genetic testing, relatively little is known about the role psychological factors play in the decision-making process. In this analogue study, a sample of Italian female university students was used to investigate determining factors that predict the intention of undergoing prenatal genetic testing. Structural Equation Modelling was used to describe the dynamic interplay between knowledge, beliefs, attitudes and health-related behaviour such as prenatal genetic testing. Following the Theory of Reasoned Action, three dimensions predicted the intention to undergo prenatal genetic testing: the need for more scientific information, a positive attitude towards genetic testing, and the inclination to terminate pregnancy after receiving a positive test result. Results showed that less religious women tended to be more in favour of prenatal tests and in undertaking such tests. This preliminary study provides genetic counsellors and policy makers with a clearer picture of their clients’ motives and attitudes behind the decision-making process of prenatal genetic testing, contributing to improving both the communication process between counsellors and their clients and the organization of genetic services.

Covariance matrix was analyzed and Maximum Likelihood Method was used

For the SEM, the sample included 132 participants since the list-wise deletion method was chosen for handling missing data.

A.I.P. (2000) Code of ethics of the Italian psychological association. Retrieved on-line on June 2011 from https://doi.org/www.aipass.org/node/26

Ahmed, S., Atkin, K., Hewison, J., & Green, J. (2006). The influence of faith and religion and the role of religious and community leaders in prenatal decisions for sickle cell disorders and thalassaemia major. Prenatal Diagnosis, 26, 801–809. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.1507.PubMedCrossRef

Ahmed, S., Green, J. M., & Hewison, J. (2006). Attitudes towards prenatal diagnosis and terminationof pregnancy for thalassaemia in pregnant Pakistani women in the North of England. Prenatal Diagnosis, 26, 248–257. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.1391.PubMedCrossRef

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.CrossRef

Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behaviour. Milton-Keynes: Open University Press.

Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D., & Brunton-Smith, I. (2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17(1), 35–54.CrossRef

Aro, A. R., Hakonen, A., Hietala, M., Lonnqvist, J., Niemelä, P., Peltonen, L., & Aula, P. (1997). Acceptance of genetic testing in a general population: age, education and gender differences. Patient Education and Counseling, 32, 41–49.PubMedCrossRef

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.PubMedCrossRef

Bauer, M. W., Durant, J., & Evans, G. (1994). European public perceptions of science. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 6(2), 163–186.CrossRef

Bauer, M. W., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25-years of PUS research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 79–95.CrossRef

Boggio, A. (2005). Italy enacts new law on medically assisted reproduction. Human Reproduction, 20, 1153–1157.PubMedCrossRef

Braithwaite, D., Sutton, S., & Steggles, N. (2002). Intention to participate in predictive genetic testing for hereditary cancer: the role of attitude toward uncertainty. Psychology and Health, 17, 761–772.CrossRef

Browner, C. H., & Preloran, H. M. (1999). Male partners’ role in Latinas’ amniocentesis decisions. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 8(2), 85–107.PubMedCrossRef

Browner, C. H., Preloran, H. M., Casado, M. C., Bass, H., & Walker, A. (2003). Genetic counselling gone awry: some consequences of miscommunication between prenatal genetic service providers and Latina clients. Social Science & Medicine, 56(9), 1933–1946.CrossRef

Cappelli, M., Surh, L., Humphreys, L., Verma, S., Logan, D., Hunter, A., & Allanson, J. (2001). Psychological and social determinants of women’s decisions to undergo genetic counselling and testing for breast cancer. Clinical Genetics, 55(6), 419–430.CrossRef

Caricati, L. (2007). Power of genetics: adaptation and validation of a scale for measuring Belief in Genetic Determinism (BGD) with classical test analysis and rasch analysis. TPM, 14(2), 99–112.

Catz, D. S., Green, N. S., Tobin, J. N., Lloyd-Puryear, M. A., Kyler, P., Umemoto, A., Cernoch, J., Brown, R., & Wolman, F. (2005). Attitudes about genetics in underserved, culturally diverse populations. Community Genetics, 8(3), 161–172.PubMed

Cipriani, R., & Bove, G. (2003). Le multiple forme del pluralismo religioso [Multiple forms of religious pluralism]. In F. Garelli, G. Guizzardi, & E. Pace (Eds.), Un singolare pluralismo (pp. 159–191). Bologna: Il Mulino.

Conferenza Stato-Regioni (2004). Linee guida per le attività di genetica medica [Guidelines to activities on medical genetics]. Retrieved on September 2008 from https://doi.org/www.statoregioni.it/Notizia.asp?IDKey=19.

Dei Tos, G. A. (2007). Etica e genetica. Studi Zancan, 2, 133–149.

Dormandy, E., Hankins, M., & Marteau, T. (2006). Attitudes and uptake of a screening test: the moderating role of ambivalence. Psychological Health, 21(4), 499–511.CrossRef

Dormandy, E., & Marteau, T. M. (2004). Uptake of a prenatal screening test: the role of healthcare professionals’ attitudes towards the test. Prenatal Diagnosis, 24, 864–868. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.1028.PubMedCrossRef

Durant, J., Bauer, M., Midden, C., Gaskell, G., & Liakopoulos, M. (2000). Two cultures of public understanding of science. In M. Dierkes & C. von Grote (Eds.), Between understanding and trust: The public, science and technology (pp. 131–156). Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.

Durant, J. R., Evans, G. A., & Thomas, G. P. (1989). The public understanding of science. Nature, 340, 11–14.PubMedCrossRef

Edwards, J. (2002). Taking public understanding seriously. New Genetics and Society, 21(3), 315–325.CrossRef

EORG (2006). Eurobarometer 64.3. Retrieved on September 2009 from https://doi.org/ec.europa.eu/research/press/2006/pdf/pr1906_eb_64_3_final_report-may2006_en.pdf

Etchegary, H. (2004). Psychological aspects of predictive genetic test decisions: what do we know so far? Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 4, 13–31.CrossRef

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Fraser, C. (1994). Attitudes, social representations and widespread beliefs. Papers on Social Representations, 3(1). Retrieved March 2002, from https://doi.org/www.psr.jku.at/psrindex.htm

Frost, S., Myers, L. B., & Newman, S. P. (2001). Genetic screening for Alzheimer’s disease: what factors predict intentions to take a test? Behavioural Medicine, 27, 101–109.CrossRef

Furr, L. A., & Seger, R. E. (1998). Psychosocial predictors of interest in prenatal genetic screening. Psychiatry Reports, 82(1), 235–244.CrossRef

G.U. n. 216, September 14th (1996). Decreto Ministeriale 22 luglio 1996. Prestazioni di assistenza specialistica ambulatoriale erogabili nell’ambito del Servizio sanitario nazionale e relative tariffe. Retrieved on August 2010 from https://doi.org/www.normativasanitaria.it/jsp/dettaglio.jsp?id=6403

Garcia, E., Timmermans, D. R., & van Leeuwen, E. (2008). Rethinking autonomy in the context of prenatal screening decision-making. Prenatal Diagnosis, 28, 115–120.PubMedCrossRef

Gaskell, G., Allum, N. C., Wagner, W., Hviid Nielsen, T., Jelsoe, E., Kohring, M., & Bauer, M. W. (2001). In the public eye: Representations of biotechnology in Europe. In G. Gaskell & M. Bauer (Eds.), Biotechnology 1996–2000: the years of controversy (pp. 53–79). London: Science Museum Publications.

Gelfand, L. A., Mensinger, J. L., & Tenhave, T. (2009). Mediation analysis: a retrospective snapshot of practice and more recent directions. The Journal of General Psychology, 136(2), 153–176.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Glanz, K., Grove, J., Lerman, C., Gotay, C., & LeMarchand, L. (1999). Correlates of intentions to obtain genetic counseling and colorectal cancer genetic testing among at-risk relatives from three ethnic groups. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 8, 329–336.

Glanz, K., Rimer, B. K., & Lewis, F. M. (2002). Health behavior and health education. Theory, research and practice. San Francisco: Wiley.

Halbert, C. H., Kessler, L. J., & Mitchell, E. (2005). Genetic testing for inherited breast cancer in African Americans. Cancer Investigation, 23, 285–295.PubMedCrossRef

Halliday, J., Lumley, J., & Watson, L. (1995). Comparison of women who do and do not have amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling. Lancet, 345, 704–709.PubMedCrossRef

Hietala, M., Hakonen, A., Aro, A. R., Niemela, P., Peltonen, L., & Aula, P. (1995). Attitudes towards genetic testing among the general population and relatives of patients with a severe genetic disease: a survey from Finland. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 56, 1493–1500.PubMed

I.S.T.A.T. (2008). Tavole di dati [Tables Data]. Retrieved on July 2010 from https://doi.org/www.istat.it/

Ishiyama, I., Nagai, A., Muto, K., Tamakoshi, A., Kokado, M., Mimura, K., Tanzawa, T., & Yamagata, Z. (2008). Relationship between public attitudes toward genomic studies related to medicine and their level of genomic literacy in Japan. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 146A(13), 1696–1706. Part A.PubMedCrossRef

Italian Law 40/2004, n.40. Gazzetta Ufficiale n.45 (February 24, 2004).

Italian National Institute of Health (1998). Linee guida per test genetici [Guidelines for genetic testing]. Retrieved from https://doi.org/www.iss.it/tege/docu/cont.php?id=72&lang=1&tipo=11

Ivry, T., Teman, E., & Frumkin, A. (2011). God-Sent ordeals and their discontents: Haredi ultra-orthodox Jewish women negotiate prenatal testing. Social Science & Medicine, 72, 1527–1533.CrossRef

Janz, N., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The health belief model: a decade later. Health Education Quarterly, 11, 1–47.PubMedCrossRef

Jaspers, J., & Fraser, C. (1984). Attitudes and social representations. In Farr and Moscovici (Eds.) Social representations (pp. 101–123). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1988). Lisrel 7. A guide to the program and appications. Chicago: Spss Inc.

Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). Lisrel 8. User’s reference guide. Lincolnwood: Scientific Software International, Inc.

Jöreskog, K. G., Sörbom, D., Du Toit, S., & Du Toit, M. (2001). LISREL 8: New statistical features. Lincolnwood: Scientific Software International, Inc.

Keller, J. (2005). In genes we trust: the biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 686–702.CrossRef

Kind, P. M., Jones, K., & Barmby, P. (2007). Developing attitudes towards science measures. International Journal of Science Education, 29(7), 871–893.CrossRef

Kobelka, C., Mattman, A., & Langlois, S. (2009). An evaluation of the decision-making process regarding amniocentesis following a screen-positive maternal serum screen result. Prenatal Diagnosis, 29(5), 514–519.CrossRefPubMed

Lanie, A. D., Jayaratne, T. E., Sheldon, J. P., Kardia, S. L. R., Anderson, E. S., Feldbaum, M., et al. (2004). Exploring the public understanding of basic genetic concepts. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 13, 305–320.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Learman, L. A., Kuppermann, M., Gates, E., Nease, R. F., Jr., Gildengorin, V., & Washington, A. E. (2003). Social and familial context of prenatal genetic testing decisions: are there racial/ethnic differences? American Journal of Medical Genetics, 119C, 19–26.PubMedCrossRef

Legare, F., St-Jacques, S., Gagnon, S., Njoya, M., Brisson, M., Fremont, P., & Rousseau, F. (2011). Prenatal screening for Down syndrome: a survey of willingness in women and family physicians to engage in shared decision-making. Prenatal Diagnosis, 31, 319–326. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.2624.PubMedCrossRef

Lerman, C., Marshall, J., Audrain, J., & Gomez-Caminero, A. (1996). Genetic testing for colon cancer susceptibility: anticipated reactions of patients and challenges to providers. International Journal of Cancer, 69(1), 58–61.PubMedCrossRef

Lerman, C., Hughes, C., Trock, B. J., Myers, R. E., Main, D., Bonney, A., Abbaszadegan, M. R., Harty, A. E., Franklin, B. A., Lynch, J. F., & Lynch, H. T. (1999). Genetic testing in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer. Journal of the American Medical Association, 281, 1618–1622.PubMedCrossRef

Leung, T. N., Ching Chau, M. M., Chang, J. J., Leung, T. Y., Fung, T. Y., & Lau, T. K. (2004). Attitudes towards termination of pregnancy among Hong Kong Chinese women attending prenatal diagnosis counselling clinic. Prenatal Diagnosis, 24, 546–551. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.950.PubMedCrossRef

MacCallum, R. C., & Hong, S. (1997). Power analysis in covariance structure modeling using GFI and AGFI. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 193–210.PubMedCrossRef

MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149.CrossRef

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 Gynaecology, 98, 282–286.PubMedCrossRef

Michie, S., Drake, H., Bobrow, M., & Marteau, T. (1995). A comparison of public and professionals’ attitudes towards genetic developments. Public Understanding of Science, 4, 243–253.CrossRef

Michie, S., Dormandy, E., French, D. P., & Marteau, T. M. (2004). Using the theory of planned behaviour to predict screening uptake in two contexts. Psychology and Health, 19(6), 705–718.CrossRef

Mishori Dery, A., Carmi, R., & Shoham Vardi, I. (2008). Attitudes toward the acceptability of reasons for pregnancytermination due to fetal abnormalities among prenatal care providers and consumers in Israel. Prenatal Diagnosis, 28, 518–524. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.2017.PubMedCrossRef

N.I.H. (n.d.). on-line document. Retrieved on September 2009 from https://doi.org/www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/downsyndrome.cfm#DownSyndrome

OBSERVA (2008). Gli italiani e la scienza. Primo rapporto su scienza, tecnologia e opinione pubblica in Italia [Italians and Science. The First report on science, technology and public opinion in Italy]. Annuario Scienza e Società. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Palmonari, A. (2004). Si può pensare ad una psicologia sociale fondata sulla teoria delle rappresentazioni sociali?. In N. De Piccoli e G.P. Quaglino (a cura di), Psicologia sociale in dialogo. Scritti in onore di Piero Amerio [Social Psychology in dialogue. Writings in honour of Piero Amerio]. Milano, Unicopli.

Press, N., & Browner, C. H. (1997). Why women say yes to prenatal diagnosis. Social Science & Medicine, 45, 979–989.CrossRef

Raz, A. E., Atar, M., Rodnay, M., Shoham-Vardi, I., & Carmi, R. (2003). Between acculturation and ambivalence: knowledge of genetics and attitudes towards genetic testing in a consanguineous Bedouin community. Community Genetics, 6, 88–95.PubMed

Reid, B., Sinclair, M., Barr, O., Dobbs, F., & Crealey, G. (2009). A meta-synthesis of pregnant women’s decision-making processes with regard to antenatal screening for Down syndrome. Social Science & Medicine, 69(11), 1561–1573.CrossRef

Rose, A. L., Peters, N., Shea, J. A., & Armstrong, K. (2005). Attitudes and misconceptions about predictive genetic testing for cancer risk. Community Genetics, 8(3), 145–151.PubMed

Rouquette, M-L., & Flament, C. (2003) Anatomie des idée ordinaries [Anatomy of everyday ideas]. Paris, A.Colin.

Rowe, R., Puddicombe, D., Hockley, C., & Redshaw, M. (2008). Offer and uptake of prenatal screening for Down syndrome in women from different social and ethnic backgrounds. Prenatal Diagnosis, 28, 1245–1250.PubMedCrossRef

S.I.G.U. (2004). Censimento SIGU 2002—Strutture di genetica medica e test genetici in Italia [Census SIGU 2002- Medical genetics structures and genetic tests in Italy]. Retrieved on March 2008 from https://doi.org/sigu.accmed.org/sigu/html/documenti_altri/2004_2_3_analysis.pdf

S.I.Di.P. (2006). Linee guida sulle tecniche invasive in diagnosi prenatale [Guidelines on prenatal diagnosis invasive techniques]. Retrieved on September 2009 from https://doi.org/194.244.42.60/ilfetonew/Articoli/LineeGuida/LINEE%20GUIDA%20No.1%20LIBRETTO.pdf

Sapp, J. C., Chandros Hull, S., Duffer, S., Zornetzer, S., Sutton, E., Marteau, T. M., & Bowles Biesecker, B. (2010). Ambivalence toward undergoing invasive prenatal testing: an exploration of its origins. Prenatal Diagnosis, 30(1), 77–82.PubMedPubMedCentral

Saucier, J. B., Johnston, D., Wicklund, C. A., Robbins-Furman, P., Hecht, J. T., & Monga, M. (2005). Racial-ethnic differences in genetic amniocentesis uptake. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 14(3), 189–195.PubMedCrossRef

Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: test of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research—Online, 8(2), 23–74.

Schwartz, M. D., Hughes, C., Roth, J., Main, D., Peshkin, B. N., Isaacs, C., et al. (2000). Spiritual faith and genetic testing decisions among high-risk breast cancer probands. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 9(4), 381–385.

Seror, V., & Ville, Y. (2010). Women’s attitudes to the successive decisions possibly involved in prenatal screening for Down syndrome: how consistent with their actual decisions? Prenatal Diagnosis, 30, 1086–1093. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.2616.PubMedCrossRef

Seth, S. G., Goka, T., Harbison, A., Hollier, L., Peterson, S., Ramondetta, L., & Noblin, S. J. (2011). Exploring the role of religiosity and spirituality in amniocentesis decision-making among Latinas. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 20(6), 660–673.PubMedCrossRef

Sher, C., Romano-Zelekha, O., Green, M. S., & Shohat, T. (2003). Factors affecting performance of prenatal genetic testing by Israeli Jewish women. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 30, 418–422.CrossRef

Shoham-Vardi, I., Weiner, N., Weitzman, D., & Levcovich, A. (2004). Termination of pregnancy: attitudes and behavior of women in a traditional society. Prenatal Diagnosis, 24(11), 869–875.PubMedCrossRef

Singer, E., Van Hoewyk, J., & Antonucci, T. C. (2005). U.S. attitudes toward genetic testing, 1990–2000. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(1), 113–125.CrossRef

Singer, E., Couper, M. P., Raghunathan, T., Van Hoewyk, J., & Antonucci, T. (2008). Trends in US attitudes toward genetic testing, 1990–2004. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(3), 446–458.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Smerecnik, C. M., Mesters, I., de Vries, N. K., & de Vries, H. (2008). Educating the general public about multifactorial genetic disease: applying a theory-based framework to understand current public knowledge. Genetic Medicine, 10, 251–258.CrossRef

Sturgis, P. J., & Allum, N. C. (2001). Gender differences in scientific knowledge and attitudes toward science: reply to Hayes and Tariq. Public Understanding of Science, 10(4), 427–430.CrossRef

Tercyak, K. P., Johnson, S. B., Roberts, S. F., & Cruz, A. C. (2001). Psychological response to prenatal genetic counseling and amniocentesis. Patient Education and Counseling, 43, 73–84.PubMedCrossRef

Thomas, S., Herbert, D., Street, A., Barnes, C., Boal, J., & Komesaroff, P. (2007). Attitudes towards and beliefs about genetic testing in the haemophilia community: a qualitative study. Haemophilia, 13(5), 633–641.PubMedCrossRef

Toiviainen, H., Jallinoja, P., Aro, A. R., & Hemminki, E. (2003). Medical and lay attitudes towards genetic screening and testing in Finland. European Journal of Human Genetics, 11, 565–572.PubMedCrossRef

Turoldo, F. (2007). Non esiste un gene per lo spirito umano: considerazioni filosofiche ed etiche sui test genetici in fase prenatale. Studi Zancan, 2, 120–132.

van den Berg, M., Timmermans, D. R. M., Kleinveld, J. H., van Eijk, J. Th., Knol, D. L., van der Wal, G., & van Vugt, J. M. G. (2007). Are counsellors’ attitudes influencing pregnant women’s attitudes and decisions on prenatal screening? Prenatal Diagnosis, 27, 518–524. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.1720.PubMedCrossRef

Vergani, P., Locatelli, A., Biffi, A., Ciriello, E., Zagarella, A., Pezzullo, J. C., & Ghidini, A. (2002). Factors affecting the decision regarding amniocentesis in women at genetic risk because of age 35 years or older. Prenatal Diagnosis, 22(9), 769–774.PubMedCrossRef

Vernon, S. W., Gritz, E. R., Peterson, S. K., Perz, C. A., Marani, S., Amos, C. I., & Baile, W. F. (1999). Intention to learn results of genetic testing for hereditary colon cancer. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 8, 353–360.

Wilson, J. L., Ferguson, G. M., & Thorn, J. M. (2011). Genetic testing likelihood: the impact of abortion views and quality of life information on women’s decisions. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 20(2), 143–156.PubMedCrossRef

Wynne, B. (1995). Public understanding of science. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (361–388). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Titel: Prenatal Genetic Testing: An Investigation of Determining Factors Affecting the Decision-Making Process
verfasst von: Monica Pivetti
Giannino Melotti
Publikationsdatum: 01.02.2013
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Genetic Counseling / Ausgabe 1/2013
Print ISSN: 1059-7700
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-3599
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-012-9498-6

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

Prenatal Genetic Testing: An Investigation of Determining Factors Affecting the Decision-Making Process

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 1/2013

A Multi-Case Report of the Pathways To and Through Genetic Testing and Cancer Risk Management for BRCA Mutation-Positive Women Aged 18–25

Attitudes and Practices Among Internists Concerning Genetic Testing

Design and Evaluation of a Decision Aid for Inviting Parents to Participate in a Fragile X Newborn Screening Pilot Study

Response to Article: Langford et al. Racial and Ethnic Differences in Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests Awareness in HINTS 2007: Sociodemographic and Numeracy Correlates. J Genet Counsel (2012) 21:440–447

“Is it Really Worth it to Get Tested?”: Primary Care Patients’ Impressions of Predictive SNP Testing for Colon Cancer

A Mobile Colonoscopic Unit for Lynch Syndrome: Trends in Surveillance Uptake and Patient Experiences of Screening in a Developing Country

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