Information Related to Prenatal Genetic Counseling: Interpretation by Adolescents, Effects on Risk Perception and Ethical Implications
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
Being raised in the genomic era may not only increase knowledge of available genetic testing but may also have an impact on how genetic information is perceived. However, little is known about how current adolescents react to the language commonly used by health care professionals providing prenatal counseling. In addition, as risk communication is related to numbers and figures, having different educational backgrounds may be associated with variability in risk perceptions. In order to investigate these issues, a previously developed questionnaire studying different ways of being told about hypothetical anomalies in a baby and corresponding risks (Abramsky and Fletcher Prenatal Diagnosis 22(13):1188–1194, 2002) was administered to high-school students in Sweden. A total of 344 questionnaires were completed by students belonging to a natural science or a social science program. The data show that teenage participants found technical jargon and words such as rare and abnormal more worrying than the presented comparison terms. Negative framing effects and perception differences related to numeric risk formats were also present. Additionally, participants’ gender and educational program did not seem to have an effect on risk assessment. In addition to reporting the questionnaire results, we discuss the ethical implications of the data based on the norm of non-directiveness and make some recommendations for practice. In general, genetic counselors should be aware that the language used within clinical services can be influential on this group of upcoming counselees.
- Abramsky, L., & Fletcher, O. (2002). Interpreting information: what is said, what is heard–a questionnaire study of health professionals and members of the public. Prenatal Diagnosis, 22(13), 1188–1194. CrossRef
- Clarke, A. (1991). Is non-directive genetic counselling possible? Lancet, 338(8773), 998–1001. CrossRef
- Darbyshire, P., Collins, C., McDonald, H. M., & Hiller, J. E. (2003). Taking antenatal group B Streptococcus seriously: women’s experiences of screening and perceptions of risk. Birth, 30(2), 116–123. CrossRef
- de Crespigny, L., Chervenak, F., & McCullough, L. (1999). Mothers and babies, pregnant women and fetuses. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 106(12), 1235–1237. CrossRef
- Decruyenaere, M., Evers-Kiebooms, G., Welkenhuysen, M., Bande-Knops, J., Van Gerven, V., & Van den Berghe, H. (1995). Adolescents’ opinions about genetic risk information, prenatal diagnosis, and pregnancy termination. Journal of Medical Genetics, 32(10), 799–804. discussion 805. CrossRef
- Gates, E. A. (2004). Communicating risk in prenatal genetic testing. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health, 49(3), 220–227.
- Georgsson Ohman, S., Grunewald, C., & Waldenstrom, U. (2009). Perception of risk in relation to ultrasound screening for Down’s syndrome during pregnancy. Midwifery, 25(3), 264–276. CrossRef
- Harper, P. S. (2004). Practical genetic counselling (6th ed.). London: Arnold.
- Heaman, M., Gupton, A., & Gregory, D. (2004). Factors influencing pregnant women’s perceptions of risk. MCN American Journal of Maternal Child Nursing, 29(2), 111–116. CrossRef
- Hodgson, J., Hughes, E., & Lambert, C. (2005). “SLANG”–Sensitive Language and the New Genetics–an exploratory study. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 14(6), 415–421. CrossRef
- Juth, N. (2005). Genetic information: Values and rights. The morality of presymptomatic Genetic Testing., Göteborg.
- Kessler, S. (1997). Psychological aspects of genetic counseling. XI. Nondirectiveness revisited. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 72(2), 164–171. CrossRef
- Marteau, T. M. (1999). Communicating genetic risk information. British Medical Bulletin, 55(2), 414–428. CrossRef
- Marteau, T. M., Dormandy, E., & Michie, S. (2001). A measure of informed choice. Health Expectations, 4(2), 99–108. CrossRef
- Michie, S., Dormandy, E., & Marteau, T. M. (2002). The multi-dimensional measure of informed choice: a validation study. Patient Education and Counseling, 48(1), 87–91. CrossRef
- Munthe, C. (1999). Pure selection: The ethics of preimplantation genetic diagnosis and choosing children without abortion. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
- Norton, M. E. (2008). Genetic screening and counseling. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 20(2), 157–163. CrossRef
- O’Connor, A., & O’Brien Pallas, L. (1997). Decisional conflict. In G. K. McFarlane & E. A. McFarlane (Eds.), Nursing diagnosis and intervention (3rd ed., pp. 486–496). Toronto: Mosby.
- Oduncu, F. S. (2002). The role of non-directiveness in genetic counseling. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 5(1), 53–63. CrossRef
- Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man, O. (2010). OMIM Statistics for November 14, 2010. from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Omim/mimstats.html
- Peters, E., Vastfjall, D., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Mazzocco, K., & Dickert, S. (2006). Numeracy and decision making. Psychological Science, 17(5), 407–413. CrossRef
- Potter, B. K., O’Reilly, N., Etchegary, H., Howley, H., Graham, I. D., Walker, M., et al. (2008). Exploring informed choice in the context of prenatal testing: findings from a qualitative study. Health Expectations, 11(4), 355–365. CrossRef
- Resta, R., Biesecker, B. B., Bennett, R. L., Blum, S., Hahn, S. E., Strecker, M. N., et al. (2006). A new definition of genetic counseling: National Society of Genetic Counselors’ Task Force report. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 15(2), 77–83. CrossRef
- Searle, J. (1996). Fearing the worst–why do pregnant women feel ‘at risk’? The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 36(3), 279–286. CrossRef
- Shiloh, S., & Saxe, L. (1989). Perception of risk in genetic counseling. Psychology & Health, 3(1), 45–61. CrossRef
- Sivell, S., Elwyn, G., Gaff, C. L., Clarke, A. J., Iredale, R., Shaw, C., et al. (2008). How risk is perceived, constructed and interpreted by clients in clinical genetics, and the effects on decision making: systematic review. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 17(1), 30–63. CrossRef
- Slovic, P. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 19(4), 689–701.
- Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24(2), 311–322. CrossRef
- Visschers, V. H., Meertens, R. M., Passchier, W. W., & de Vries, N. N. (2009). Probability information in risk communication: a review of the research literature. Risk Analysis, 29(2), 267–287. CrossRef
- Welkenhuysen, M., Evers-Kiebooms, G., & d’Ydewalle, G. (2001). The language of uncertainty in genetic risk communication: framing and verbal versus numerical information. Patient Education and Counseling, 43(2), 179–187. CrossRef
- Wertz, D. (1998). Eugenics is alive and well: a survey of genetic professionals around the world. Science in Context, 11(3–4), 493–510.
- Information Related to Prenatal Genetic Counseling: Interpretation by Adolescents, Effects on Risk Perception and Ethical Implications
Journal of Genetic Counseling
Volume 21, Issue 4 , pp 536-546
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer US
- Additional Links
- Prenatal diagnosis
- Risk communication
- Educational background
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Neurogenetics Unit, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- 2. Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
- 3. Sophiahemmet University College, Stockholm, Sweden
- 4. Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Stockholm Centre for Healthcare Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- 5. Department of Clinical Genetics, Clinical Genetics Unit, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden