Ambivalence toward undergoing invasive prenatal testing: an exploration of its origins

Decision-making factors in prenatal testing: A systematic review

This review examines the factors that affect the decision-making process of parental couples evaluating prenatal screening and diagnostic tests. A systematic search was performed using PubMed and PsycInfo databases. The 46 included studies had to: investigate the decision-making process about prenatal testing; focus on tests detecting trisomy 21, 18, 13, and abnormalities of sex chromosomes; be published in English peer-reviewed journals. The decision-making process seems composed of different levels: an individual level with demographic, clinical, and psychological aspects; a contextual level related to the technical features of the test and the information received; a relational level involving family and society.

An ethical framework for genetic counseling in the genomic era

The field of genetic counseling has grown and diversified since the profession emerged in the early 1970s. In the same period, genomic testing has become more complex, profitable, and widespread. With these developments, the scope of ethical considerations relevant to genetic counseling has expanded. In light of this, we find it helpful to revisit how ethical and relational variables are used to inform genetic counseling practice. Our specific focus is on whether, and to what extent, it is ethically acceptable for genetic counselors to make normative recommendations to patients. This article builds on prior literature that has critiqued nondirectiveness, a concept that has influenced and constrained the modern profession of genetic counseling since its origin. In it, we review scholarly efforts to move beyond nondirectiveness, which we believe privilege patient autonomy at the expense of other important values. We then argue that genetic counselors should favor a more explicit commitment to the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, as well as a broader understanding of autonomy and the relational variables that impact genetic counseling. Finally, to translate our arguments into practice, we present a framework of six considerations that genetic counselors should take into account when deciding whether it is ethically acceptable, or even desirable, to make recommendations to patients in certain areas of their work.

Qualitative investigation of the factors that generate ambivalent feelings in women who give birth after receiving negative results from non-invasive prenatal testing

Background

Women who receive negative results from non-invasive prenatal genetic testing (NIPT) may find that they later have mixed or ambivalent feelings, for example, feelings of accepting NIPT and regretting undergoing the test. This study aimed to investigate the factors generating ambivalent feelings among women who gave birth after having received negative results from NIPT.

Methods

A questionnaire was sent to women who received a negative NIPT result, and a contents analysis was conducted focusing on ambivalent expressions for those 1562 women who responded the questionnaire. The qualitative data gathered from the questionnaire were analyzed using the N-Vivo software package.

Results

Environmental factors, genetic counseling-related factors, and increased anticipatory anxiety, affected the feeling of ambivalence among pregnant women. Furthermore, pregnant women desired more information regarding the detailed prognosis for individuals with Down syndrome and living with them and/or termination, assuming the possibility that they were positive.

Conclusions

Three major interrelated factors affected the feeling of ambivalence in women. Highlighting and discussing such factors during genetic counseling may resolve some of these ambivalences, thereby enhancing the quality of decisions made by pregnant women.

Associations of perceived norms with intentions to learn genomic sequencing results: Roles for attitudes and ambivalence

OBJECTIVE

Genomic sequencing is becoming increasingly accessible, highlighting the need to understand the social and psychological factors that drive interest in receiving testing results. These decisions may depend on perceived descriptive norms (how most others behave) and injunctive norms (what is approved of by others). We predicted that descriptive norms would be directly associated with intentions to learn genomic sequencing results, whereas injunctive norms would be associated indirectly, via attitudes. These differential associations with intentions versus attitudes were hypothesized to be strongest when individuals held ambivalent attitudes toward obtaining results.

METHOD

Participants enrolled in a genomic sequencing trial (n = 372) reported intentions to learn medically actionable, nonmedically actionable, and carrier sequencing results. Descriptive norms items referenced other study participants. Injunctive norms were analyzed separately for close friends and family members. Attitudes, attitudinal ambivalence, and sociodemographic covariates were also assessed.

RESULTS

In structural equation models, both descriptive norms and friend injunctive norms were associated with intentions to receive all sequencing results (ps < .004). Attitudes consistently mediated all friend injunctive norms-intentions associations, but not the descriptive norms-intentions associations. Attitudinal ambivalence moderated the association between friend injunctive norms (p ≤ .001), but not descriptive norms (p = .16), and attitudes. Injunctive norms were significantly associated with attitudes when ambivalence was high, but were unrelated when ambivalence was low. Results replicated for family injunctive norms.

CONCLUSIONS

Descriptive and injunctive norms play roles in genomic sequencing decisions. Considering mediators and moderators of these processes enhances ability to optimize use of normative information to support informed decision making. (PsycINFO Database Record

It's complicated - Factors predicting decisional conflict in prenatal diagnostic testing

BACKGROUND

The technologies currently available to detect the presence of foetal genetic abnormalities are complex, and undergoing prenatal diagnostic testing can have wide-ranging repercussions. Before individuals can decide with certainty whether or not to take these tests, they first need to grasp the many psychosocial and clinical dimensions of prenatal genetic testing.

OBJECTIVE

To test a model integrating key psychosocial and clinical factors as predictors of decisional conflict in decisions about whether or not to undergo prenatal genetic testing.

METHOD

Adults (n = 457) read one of four hypothetical scenarios asking them to imagine expecting a child and considering the option of a prenatal test able to detect a genetic condition; age of condition onset (birth vs. adulthood) and its curability (no cure vs. curable) were manipulated. Participants completed measures of decisional conflict, perceived benefits from normal results, test response efficacy, condition coherence, child-related worry, perceived disagreement with the other parent's preference, motivation to comply with doctors' perceived preferences, and parity.

RESULTS

Prenatal testing decisional conflict was positively predicted by perceiving normal results as beneficial, doubting the test's reliability, lacking understanding of the genetic condition, worrying about the health of the foetus, perceiving differences of opinion from partner/spouse, wanting to follow doctors' preferences, and being childless.

DISCUSSION

These results, of growing relevance given the increasing availability of new technologies in pregnancy care, can inform communication strategies that facilitate couples' decision making.

CONCLUSION

This study provides insights into factors that might complicate prenatal testing decision making.

NIPT in a clinical setting: an analysis of uptake in the first months of clinical availability

The objective of our study was to describe the clinical experience in offering noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for aneuploidy to pregnant patients, highlighting the clinical utility, barriers to acceptance and limitations of this novel test. Data were collected from 961 patients offered NIPT from 3/1/12 to 9/30/12. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed. Twenty-eight percent of patients elected NIPT and 72 % declined. Women continue to elect less sensitive and less specific screening through biochemical markers and nuchal translucency. Women considering all options at average risk for aneuploidy were less likely to accept NIPT testing than women who had a risk adjustment from an ultrasound marker or routine screening test. In our multi-ethnic population, Filipina women were significantly less likely to elect NIPT compared to other ethnicities. Five percent of NIPT ordered failed analysis. Several chromosome abnormalities were detected through CVS or amniocentesis that would not have been detected by NIPT. Even though NIPT offers a non-invasive, highly sensitive and specific analysis for aneuploidy, the majority of women in our study declined this option. NIPT should be offered in the context of genetic counseling so that women understand the limitations of the testing and make an educated decision about the testing option best suited to their situation.

Non-invasive prenatal testing for single gene disorders: exploring the ethics

Non-invasive prenatal testing for single gene disorders is now clearly on the horizon. This new technology offers obvious clinical benefits such as safe testing early in pregnancy. Before widespread implementation, it is important to consider the possible ethical implications. Four hypothetical scenarios are presented that highlight how ethical ideals of respect for autonomy, privacy and fairness may come into play when offering non-invasive prenatal testing for single gene disorders. The first scenario illustrates the moral case for using these tests for 'information only', identifying a potential conflict between larger numbers of women seeking the benefits of the test and the wider social impact of funding tests that do not offer immediate clinical benefit. The second scenario shows how the simplicity and safety of non-invasive prenatal testing could lead to more autonomous decision-making and, conversely, how this could also lead to increased pressure on women to take up testing. In the third scenario we show how, unless strong safeguards are put in place, offering non-invasive prenatal testing could be subject to routinisation with informed consent undermined and that woman who are newly diagnosed as carriers may be particularly vulnerable. The final scenario introduces the possibility of a conflict of the moral rights of a woman and her partner through testing for single gene disorders. This analysis informs our understanding of the potential impacts of non-invasive prenatal testing for single gene disorders on clinical practice and has implications for future policy and guidelines for prenatal care.

Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis for fetal sex determination: benefits and disadvantages from the service users' perspective

Prenatal fetal sex determination is clinically indicated for women who are at risk of having a child with a serious genetic disorder affecting a particular sex. Ultrasound has been the traditional method used, but early fetal sex determination using non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) can now be performed using cell-free fetal DNA in maternal plasma. The study aim was to assess the views and experiences of service users who had used NIPD for fetal sex determination. In this paper, we report on the perceived benefits and disadvantages. A qualitative approach using semi-structured interviews was used. A total of 44 participants (38 women and 6 partners of participating women) were recruited. Participants' views and experiences of NIPD were overwhelmingly positive. Concerning benefits over traditional methods, three themes emerged: (1) technical aspects of technology; (2) timing; and (3) enhanced decision-making. Practical advantages of NIPD included avoiding miscarriage, and there were a number of psychological advantages associated with timing such as perceived control, early re-engagement, normalization of pregnancy and peace of mind. Participants also valued NIPD as it enabled a stepwise approach to decision-making. A number of disadvantages were discussed including concerns about social sexing and increased bonding at a time in pregnancy when miscarriage risk is high. However, participants felt these were fairly minor in comparison with the advantages of NIPD. Until definitive genetic diagnosis using NIPD is available, NIPD for fetal sex determination is perceived as a good interim measure with a number of notable advantages over traditional methods.

Prenatal diagnosis and termination of pregnancy: perspectives of South African parents of children with Down syndrome

This study aims to evaluate the attitudes of a group of South African parents with a preschool child with Down syndrome (DS) towards prenatal diagnosis (PND) and termination of a Down syndrome-affected pregnancy (TAP). This study employs a qualitative phenomenological approach with the use of semi-structured interviews. Twelve participants were recruited from two state sector hospitals in Cape Town, South Africa. Thematic analysis was used to interpret the data. The participants had a positive attitude towards PND and felt that it was every parent's right to have the option. They considered a benefit of PND the fact that it allowed parents time to prepare for the arrival of a baby with DS. The induced miscarriage risk associated with invasive prenatal testing procedures caused major negative feelings. They were totally opposed to the termination of a Down syndrome-affected pregnancy due to their personal experience, moral, ethical or religious convictions. South African parents of preschool children with Down syndrome are comfortable with PND for Down syndrome; however, they do not support TAP. These findings will provide health care providers with further insight into the motivations behind the decisions their patients make.

It's the amount of thought that counts: when ambivalence contributes to mammography screening delay

PURPOSE

This study examines whether ambivalence toward mammography screening, as moderated by total amount of thought given to the reasons for and against getting mammograms at recommended intervals, predicts greater delay in obtaining subsequent screening mammograms.

METHODS

A sample of 3,430 insured women with recent (within the last 8-9 months) screening mammograms completed telephone interviews as part of a 5-year intervention study to achieve sustained adherence to annual-interval mammography. Delay was assessed by the number of days between mammograms.

RESULTS

Controlling for demographic factors and perceived screening barriers, days between mammograms increased as ambivalence and thought increased. Thought moderated ambivalence: Among women who were most ambivalent, women obtained mammograms 1 month earlier for each unit increase in thought.

CONCLUSION

Future studies should test innovative ways to resolve ambivalence and increase thought about consequences of getting mammograms as a strategy to promote mammography screening adherence.

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.

Invasive prenatal testing decisions in pregnancy after infertility

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed decisional conflict about invasive prenatal testing among women pregnant after infertility.

METHODS

We surveyed 180 pregnant women with a history of infertility using a mixed methods cross-sectional design. Difficulty in deciding whether to have prenatal testing was measured using the Decisional Conflict Scale.

RESULTS

A minority of women (31%) chose to have invasive prenatal testing. Most participants (72%) reported low decisional conflict (score < 25; mean = 22.1; standard deviation = 23.2; range: 0-100). Half (53%) of the participants said that infertility made the testing decision easier. Qualitative data suggest that infertility makes the decision easier by clarifying relevant values and priorities. Most infertility characteristics studied were not significantly associated with decisional conflict. Variables associated with higher decisional conflict included infertility distress due to rejection of a childfree lifestyle, disagreement with others about testing, and choosing to have invasive testing after having had treatment for infertility.

CONCLUSIONS

For some women, infertility may make the invasive prenatal testing decision easier. Women with the greatest need for decisional support were those who have had treatment and choose invasive testing, who disagree with others about their testing choice, or who are particularly distressed about being childless.