An evaluation of the decision-making process regarding amniocentesis following a screen-positive maternal serum screen result

The Need to Consider Context: A Systematic Review of Factors Involved in the Consent Process for Genetic Tests from the Perspective of Patients

Background: Informed consent for genetic tests is a well-established practice. It should be based on good quality information and in keeping with the patient's values. Existing informed consent assessment tools assess knowledge and values. Nevertheless, there is no consensus on what specific elements need to be discussed or considered in the consent process for genetic tests.Methods: We performed a systematic review to identify all factors involved in the decision-making and consent process about genetic testing, from the perspective of patients. Through public databases, we identified studies reporting factors that influence the decision to accept or decline genetic testing. Studies were included if they reported the perspective of patients or at-risk individuals. All articles were thematically coded.Results: 1989 articles were reviewed: 70 met inclusion criteria and 12 additional articles were identified through the references of included studies. Coding of the 82 articles led to the identification of 45 factors involved in decision-making and consent, which were initially divided into three domains: in favor of, against or with an undetermined influence on genetic testing. Each factor was also divided into three subdomains relating to the informed choice concept: knowledge, values or other. The factors in the "other" subdomain were all related to the context of testing (e.g. timing, cost, influence of family members, etc), and were present in all three domains.Conclusions: We describe the network of factors contributing to decision-making and consent process and identify the context of genetic testing as a third component to influence this process. Future studies should consider the evaluation of contextual factors as an important and relevant component of the consent and decision-making process about genetic tests. Based on these results, we plan to develop and test a more comprehensive tool to assess informed consent for genetic testing.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

The accuracy of cell-free DNA screening for fetal segmental copy number variants: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The performance of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening for microscopic copy number variants (CNVs) is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) of cfDNA screening for CNVs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Articles published in EMBASE, PubMed or Web of Science before November 2022 were screened for inclusion. This protocol was registered with PROSPERO (23 March 2021, CRD42021250849) prior to initiation.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Articles published in English, detailing diagnostic outcomes for at least 10 high-risk CNV results with cfDNA were considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The PPV was calculated and pooled with random-effects models for double-arcsine transformed proportions, using cases with diagnostic confirmation. Overall sensitivity, specificity and a summary receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve were calculated using bivariate models. The risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2.

MAIN RESULTS

In all, 63 articles were included in the final analysis, detailing 1 591 459 cfDNA results. The pooled PPV was 37.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 30.6-44.8), with substantial statistical heterogeneity (I²  = 93.9%). Bivariate meta-analysis estimated sensitivity and specificity to be 77.4% (95% CI 65.7-86.0) and 99.4% (95% CI 98.0-99.8), respectively, with an area under the summary ROC curve of 0.947 (95% CI 0.776-0.984).

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately one-third of women who screen high-risk for CNVs with cfDNA will have an affected fetus. This value is of importance for screening counselling.

Cost of providing cell-free DNA screening for Down syndrome in Finland using different strategies

OBJECTIVES

A financial analysis is carried out to assess costs and benefits of providing cell-free DNA screening in Finland, using different strategies.

METHODS

Three cell-free DNA screening strategies are considered: Primary, all women; Secondary, those with positive Combined test; and Contingent, the 10-30% with the highest Combined test risks. Three costs are estimated: additional cost for 10,000 pregnancies compared with the Combined test; 'marginal' cost of avoiding a Down syndrome birth which occurs in a pregnancy that would have been false-negative using the Combined test; and marginal cost of preventing the iatrogenic loss of a non-Down syndrome birth which occurs in a pregnancy that would have been false-positive.

RESULTS

Primary cell-free DNA will require additional funds of €250,000. The marginal cost per Down syndrome birth avoided is considerably less than the lifetime medical and indirect cost; the marginal cost per unaffected iatrogenic fetal loss prevented is higher than one benefit measure but lower than another. If the ultrasound component of the Combined test is retained, as would be in Finland, the additional funds required rise to €992,000. Secondary cell-free DNA is cost-saving as is a Contingent strategy with 10% selected but whilst when 20-30% costs rise they are much less than for the Primary strategy and are cost-beneficial.

CONCLUSIONS

When considering the place of cell-free DNA screening it is important to make explicit the additional and marginal costs of different screening strategies and the associated benefits. Under most assumptions the balance is favorable for Contingent screening.

Pregnant women's attitudes and decision-making regarding prenatal Down syndrome screening and diagnosis: scale development and validation

Background

Down syndrome is a common chromosomal abnormality and prenatal screening can inform parents of the risk of their baby having Down syndrome. Little research has examined how decisions regarding both Down syndrome screening as well as diagnosis are made among women who are currently pregnant and how their decisions are influenced by their social contexts, specifically family and social media, using mixed methods. The study was to test the validity and reliability of a scale that measures pregnant women’s attitudes and decision-making concerning prenatal Down syndrome screening and diagnosis in urban areas of Taiwan.

Methods

We developed an item pool based on a literature review and in-depth interviews with 30 pregnant women recruited at two district hospitals in urban areas. The item pool was reviewed by a panel of experts and then administered to 300 women who had been pregnant for less than 24 weeks and had not received the Down syndrome screening tests. We used item analysis and exploratory factor analysis to validate the scale and test its reliability.

Results

The initial item pool had 54 items. After the expert review, three items were deleted. After the item analysis, 16 additional items were deleted. Exploratory factor analysis of the remaining items revealed four factors labeled – “Attitudes towards Down syndrome and Screening Tests,” “Important others’ Attitudes towards Down Syndrome,” “Influence of Important Others on Decision-Making,” and “Influence of Social Media on Decision-Making” – and 16 of the remaining items had satisfactory loadings on those factors, explaining 72.0% of the total variance. The Cronbach’s α values of the dimensions ranged between 0.75 and 0.90, demonstrating satisfactory internal reliability.

Conclusions

The scale has satisfactory validity and reliability, and can be used to understand pregnant women’s attitudes and decision-making regarding Down syndrome screening and diagnosis, and to help design tailored consultations for pregnant women in clinical settings.

Expert Knowledge Influences Decision-Making for Couples Receiving Positive Prenatal Chromosomal Microarray Testing Results

To assess how participants receiving abnormal prenatal genetic testing results seek information and understand the implications of results, 27 US female patients and 12 of their male partners receiving positive prenatal microarray testing results completed semi-structured phone interviews. These interviews documented participant experiences with chromosomal microarray testing, understanding of and emotional response to receiving results, factors affecting decision-making about testing and pregnancy termination, and psychosocial needs throughout the testing process. Interview data were analyzed using a modified grounded theory approach. In the absence of certainty about the implications of results, understanding of results is shaped by biomedical expert knowledge (BEK) and cultural expert knowledge (CEK). When there is a dearth of BEK, as in the case of receiving results of uncertain significance, participants rely on CEK, including religious/spiritual beliefs, "gut instinct," embodied knowledge, and social network informants. CEK is a powerful platform to guide understanding of prenatal genetic testing results. The utility of culturally situated expert knowledge during testing uncertainty emphasizes that decision-making occurs within discourses beyond the biomedical domain. These forms of "knowing" may be integrated into clinical consideration of efficacious patient assessment and counseling.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids are interventions that support patients by making their decisions explicit, providing information about options and associated benefits/harms, and helping clarify congruence between decisions and personal values.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of decision aids in people facing treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH METHODS

Updated search (2012 to April 2015) in CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; and grey literature; includes CINAHL to September 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing decision aids to usual care and/or alternative interventions. For this update, we excluded studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made and the decision-making process.Secondary outcomes were behavioural, health, and health system effects.We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of studies that used the patient decision aid to prepare for the consultation and of those that used it in the consultation. We used GRADE to assess the strength of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 105 studies involving 31,043 participants. This update added 18 studies and removed 28 previously included studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids. During the 'Risk of bias' assessment, we rated two items (selective reporting and blinding of participants/personnel) as mostly unclear due to inadequate reporting. Twelve of 105 studies were at high risk of bias.With regard to the attributes of the choice made, decision aids increased participants' knowledge (MD 13.27/100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.32 to 15.23; 52 studies; N = 13,316; high-quality evidence), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.66 to 2.66; 17 studies; N = 5096; moderate-quality evidence), and congruency between informed values and care choices (RR 2.06; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.91; 10 studies; N = 4626; low-quality evidence) compared to usual care.Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, decision aids decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -9.28/100; 95% CI -12.20 to -6.36; 27 studies; N = 5707; high-quality evidence), indecision about personal values (MD -8.81/100; 95% CI -11.99 to -5.63; 23 studies; N = 5068; high-quality evidence), and the proportion of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.83; 16 studies; N = 3180; moderate-quality evidence).Decision aids reduced the proportion of undecided participants and appeared to have a positive effect on patient-clinician communication. Moreover, those exposed to a decision aid were either equally or more satisfied with their decision, the decision-making process, and/or the preparation for decision making compared to usual care.Decision aids also reduced the number of people choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.00; 18 studies; N = 3844), but this reduction reached statistical significance only after removing the study on prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer gene carriers (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.97; 17 studies; N = 3108). Compared to usual care, decision aids reduced the number of people choosing prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; 10 studies; N = 3996) and increased those choosing to start new medications for diabetes (RR 1.65; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.56; 4 studies; N = 447). For other testing and screening choices, mostly there were no differences between decision aids and usual care.The median effect of decision aids on length of consultation was 2.6 minutes longer (24 versus 21; 7.5% increase). The costs of the decision aid group were lower in two studies and similar to usual care in four studies. People receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from those receiving usual care in terms of anxiety, general health outcomes, and condition-specific health outcomes. Studies did not report adverse events associated with the use of decision aids.In subgroup analysis, we compared results for decision aids used in preparation for the consultation versus during the consultation, finding similar improvements in pooled analysis for knowledge and accurate risk perception. For other outcomes, we could not conduct formal subgroup analyses because there were too few studies in each subgroup.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care across a wide variety of decision contexts, people exposed to decision aids feel more knowledgeable, better informed, and clearer about their values, and they probably have a more active role in decision making and more accurate risk perceptions. There is growing evidence that decision aids may improve values-congruent choices. There are no adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. New for this updated is evidence indicating improved knowledge and accurate risk perceptions when decision aids are used either within or in preparation for the consultation. Further research is needed on the effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, and use with lower literacy populations.

Coping with worry while waiting for diagnostic results: a qualitative study of the experiences of pregnant couples following a high-risk prenatal screening result

BACKGROUND

It is well documented that pregnant women experience increased worry and uncertainty following a high-risk prenatal screening result. While waiting for diagnostic results this worry continues to linger. It has been suggested that high-risk women put the pregnancy mentally 'on hold' during this period, however, not enough is known about how high-risk women and their partners cope while waiting for diagnostic results. The aim of this study was to identify the strategies employed to cope with worry and uncertainty.

METHODS

Qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 16 high-risk couples who underwent diagnostic testing. The couples were recruited at a university hospital fetal medicine unit in Denmark. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

All couples reported feeling worried and sad upon receiving a high-risk screening result. While waiting for diagnostic results, the couples focused on coming to their own understanding of the situation and employed both social withdrawal and social engagement as strategies to prevent worry from escalating. Additionally, couples used gratitude, reassuring reasoning and selective memory as means to maintain hopes for a good outcome. Discussions about what to do in case of an abnormal test result were notably absent in the accounts of waiting. This bracketing of the potential abnormal result allowed the couples to hold on to a 'normal' pregnancy and to employ an 'innocent-till-proven-guilty' approach to their worries about the fetus's health. None of the interviewed couples regretted having prenatal screening and all of them expected to have prenatal screening in a future pregnancy.

CONCLUSIONS

The couples in this study did not put the pregnancy mentally 'on hold'. Worry and uncertainty must be understood as managed through a diverse range of practical and emotional strategies that change and overlap in the process of waiting. Clinicians may support appropriate ways of coping with worry and waiting through empathetic and empowering clinical communication. In addition to providing adequate information and presenting options available, clinicians may support high-risk women/couples by encouraging them to seek their own personal understandings and management strategies as a way to gain some control in an uncertain situation.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were:A) 'choice made' attributes;B) 'decision-making process' attributes.Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each.Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies).A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes:Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13).B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes:Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in:a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18);b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); andc) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18).Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice.C) Secondary outcomes Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable.The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values.New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

Factors determining uptake of invasive testing following first-trimester combined testing

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to analyze differences in characteristics between women who opted for invasive testing after first-trimester combined testing and those who did not.

METHOD

Follow-up was performed in 20 215 combined tests conducted between 2007 and 2011 in the central region of the Netherlands. Multivariate logistic regression analysis compared variables (Down syndrome risk estimate, maternal age, previous Down syndrome pregnancy, IVF/ICSI, parity and nuchal translucency measurement) between different groups.

RESULTS

65.4% of women with a Down syndrome risk estimate ≥1 in 200 opted for invasive 49 testing. In a multivariate model, women opting for invasive testing were significantly younger (odds ratio 0.92; 95% confidence interval 0.88-0.95) and less likely to have had IVF/ICSI (odds ratio 0.57; 95% confidence interval 0.37-0.87) than women opting out on invasive testing. In this high risk group, women <36 years opted for invasive testing more frequently, regardless of their Down syndrome risk estimate magnitude. Women ≥36 years let the magnitude of the risk estimate count significantly in their decision to opt for invasive testing.

CONCLUSION

Because of the dissimilarity in the offer of prenatal screening and invasive diagnosis in the Dutch prenatal screening policy, women <36 years and women >36 years make different choices when confronted with similar Down syndrome risk estimates.

Variables influencing pregnancy termination following prenatal diagnosis of fetal chromosome abnormalities

The objective of this study was to identify variables that may influence the decision to terminate or continue a pregnancy affected by a chromosome abnormality. We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of 286 pregnancies diagnosed with a chromosome abnormality following genetic counseling and prenatal diagnosis. Data obtained included procedure type, chromosome results, ethnicity, maternal age, use of fertility treatments, and uptake of genetic counseling after results, among other factors. Wilcoxon rank sum test, Fisher's exact test, and univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used for data analysis. The overall termination rate in this study was 82.9 %. A lower likelihood to terminate was found in pregnancies with a diagnosis of a sex chromosome abnormality (OR 0.05, p < .0001), Filipina race (OR 0.10, p = .03), and uptake of second genetic counseling session (OR 0.05, p < .0001). Prior history of termination was associated with increased likelihood to terminate (OR 8.6, p = .02). Factors revealing no statistically significant association with termination included maternal age, gestational age, clinic site, fetal gender, ultrasound anomalies, reason for referral and who informed the patient. Our data affirm the complexity of the decision making process and reinforce that providers should refrain from making assumptions regarding a patient's likelihood to terminate based on factors such as maternal age, gestational age, type of procedure, or ultrasound.

Reproductive decisions after fetal genetic counselling

A broad range of testing modalities for fetal genetic disease has been established. These include carrier screening for single-gene mutations, first-trimester and second-trimester screening for chromosome abnormalities and open neural-tube defects, prenatal diagnosis by means of chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis, and preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Reproductive decisions before and after fetal genetic counselling represent the culmination of a dynamic interaction between prospective parents, obstetrician and genetic counsellor. The decision to undergo genetic testing before and after genetic counselling is influenced by a host of interrelated factors, including patient-partner and family relationships, patient-physician communication, societal mores, religious beliefs, and the media. Because of the complexity of personal and societal factors involved, it is not surprising that genetic counselling concerning reproductive decision-making must be individualised. A limited number of principles, guidelines and standards apply when counselling about testing for fetal genetic disease. These principles are that genetic counselling should be non-directive and unbiased and that parental decisions should be supported regardless of the reproductive choice. A critical responsibility of the obstetrician and genetic counsellor is to provide accurate and objective information about the implications, advantages, disadvantages and consequences of any genetic testing applied to prospective parents and their fetuses. These principles and responsibilities will be tested as newer technologies, such as array comparative genome hybridisation, non-invasive prenatal diagnosis and sequencing of the entire genome are introduced into the field of reproductive genetics and become routine practice.

Prenatal genetic testing: an investigation of determining factors affecting the decision-making process

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.

Noninvasive prenatal diagnosis: pregnant women's interest and expected uptake

OBJECTIVE

To investigate pregnant women's level of future interest in noninvasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) and what factors might affect expected uptake of this testing.

METHOD

Written questionnaires were administered to women in their third trimester.

RESULTS

One hundred fourteen women returned the questionnaire (80.9% response rate). Of these, 71.9% reported interest in NIPD, 22.7% were ambivalent, and 5.4% were uninterested. Safety of the fetus was the single most important factor in 75% of women's decisions. Factors associated with increased interest in NIPD included: older age (p = 0.036), higher education (p = 0.013), Caucasian or Asian ethnicity (p = 0.011), and higher likelihood to terminate an affected pregnancy (p = 0.002). Nearly 20% of women reported that they would do whatever their doctor recommended regarding NIPD, and 94.4% of women wished to meet with a genetic counselor at some point to discuss NIPD.

CONCLUSION

The majority of pregnant women report hypothetical interest in NIPD, primarily because of increased safety for the fetus, although a significant minority are uninterested or ambivalent. Discussions with healthcare providers regarding NIPD, and their recommendations, are likely to be an important factor in women's decisions about this testing. As such, adequate discussion of the implications of prenatal diagnostic testing will be critical.

Exploring the role of religiosity and spirituality in amniocentesis decision-making among Latinas

Given the complex array of emotional and medical issues that may arise when making a decision about amniocentesis, women may find that their spiritual and/or religious beliefs can comfort and assist their decision-making process. Prior research has suggested that Latinas' spiritual and/or religious beliefs directly influence their amniocentesis decision. A more intimate look into whether Latinas utilize their beliefs during amniocentesis decision-making may provide an opportunity to better understand their experience. The overall goal of this study was to describe the role structured religion and spirituality plays in Latinas' daily lives and to evaluate how religiosity and spirituality influences health care decisions, specifically in prenatal diagnosis. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eleven women who were invited to describe their religious beliefs and thoughts while considering the option of amniocentesis. All participants acknowledged the influence of religious and/or spiritual beliefs in their everyday lives. Although the women sought comfort and found validation in their beliefs and in their faith in God's will during their amniocentesis decision-making process, results suggest the risk of procedure-related complications played more of a concrete role than their beliefs.

Uptake of prenatal diagnostic testing and the effectiveness of prenatal screening for Down syndrome

OBJECTIVES

To map prenatal screening and diagnostic testing pathways in Victorian pregnant women during 2003 to 2004; measure the impact of prenatal diagnostic testing uptake on the effectiveness of prenatal screening for Down syndrome; and assess factors influencing uptake of diagnostic testing following screening.

METHODS

State-wide data collections of prenatal screening and diagnostic tests were linked to all Victorian births and pregnancy terminations for birth defects.

RESULTS

Overall, 52% of women had a prenatal test (65 692/126 305); screening (44.9%), diagnostic testing (3.9%), or both (3.2%). Uptake of diagnostic testing was 71.4% (2390/3349) after an increased risk screen result, and 2.5% (1381/54 286) after a low risk result. Variation in uptake of diagnostic testing reduced the effectiveness of the screening program by 11.2%: from 87.4% (sensitivity - 125/143) to 76.2% (prenatal diagnoses of Down syndrome - 109/143). In both the increased and low risk groups, uptake was influenced by absolute numerical risk, as well as by the change in numerical risk from a priori risk.

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive follow-up demonstrates clearly that numerical risk is being used to aid in decision making about confirmatory diagnostic testing. Collectively, these fundamental individual decisions will impact on the overall effectiveness of screening programmes for Down syndrome.

Prenatal testing for Down syndrome: comparison of screening practices in the UK and USA

Prenatal testing for Down Syndrome is a topic covered in every genetic counselor's training as it constitutes the main workload of genetic counselors in prenatal settings. Most Western countries nowadays offer some type of testing for Down Syndrome. However, practices vary according to country with regards to what tests are offered, insurance coverage and the legal situation concerning the option of terminating an affected pregnancy. In view of the growing interest in international genetic counseling issues, this article aims to compare prenatal testing practices in two English-speaking countries: the United Kingdom and the United States of America. A case will be presented to highlight some of the differences in practice. The topic underlines important implications for genetic counseling practice, such as patients' understanding of testing practices, risk perception, counseling provision and impact of prenatal testing results.