Advertisement

Journal of Genetic Counseling

, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 139–152 | Cite as

Follow-up survey of pregnancies with diagnoses of chromosomal abnormality

  • Shane Palmer
  • Joann Spencer
  • Theodore Kushnick
  • John Wiley
  • Susan Bowyer
Article

Abstract

A small clinical survey was undertaken at East Carolina University School of Medicine to examine the factors which influenced the decisions of five families to continue pregnancies after a chromosomal abnormality was detected. Little has been published concerning the psychosocial effects after continuing pregnancies in which the fetus was diagnosed with a chromosome abnormality by amniocentesis. In order to identify the factors that influenced their decisions, an interview with each couple was undertaken using a 25-part questionnaire. This paper addresses the method of interviewing, case material, and background concerning each couple and the summary of the results.

Key words

amniocentesis chromosomal abnormality Down syndrome Trisomy 13 Klinefelter syndrome 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adler B, Kushnick, T (1982) Genetic counseling in prenatally diagnosed irisomy 18 and 21: Psychosocial aspects.Pediatrics 69(1):94–99.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Antley RM (1976) Variables in the outcome of genetic counseling.Soc Biol 23(2):108–115.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Antley RM (1979) Genetic counseling: Problems of sociological research in evaluating the quality of counselee decision making.Am J Med Genet 4:1–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bringle RG, Antley RM (1980) Elaboration of the definition of genetic counseling into a model for counselee decision-making.Soc Biol 27(4):304–318.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark SL, DeVore GR (1989) Prenatal diagnosis for couples who would not consider abortion.Obstet Gynecol 73(6):1035–1037.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Elkins TE,et al. (1986) Attitudes of mothers of children with down syndrome concerning amniocentesis, abortion, and prenatal genetic counseling techniques.Obstet Gynecol 68(2):181–184.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Fava GA,et al. (1983) Hostility in women before and after amniocentesis.J Reprod Med 28(1):29–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Iams JD,et al. (1979) Midtrimester transabdominal amniocentesis. In:Antenatal Diagnosis. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, I-33–I-80.Google Scholar
  9. Oetting IA, Steele MW (1982) A controlled retrospective follow-up study of the impact of genetic counseling on prenatal reproductive following the birth of a Down syndrome child.Clin Genet 21:7–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Pauker P, Pauker, SG (1987) The amniocentesis decision: Ten years of decision analytic experience. Birth Defects:Original Article Series 23(2): 151–169.Google Scholar
  11. Seals BF,et al. (1985) Moral and religious influences on the amniocentesis decision.Soc Biol. 32(1–2):13–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc. 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shane Palmer
    • 1
  • Joann Spencer
    • 2
  • Theodore Kushnick
    • 3
  • John Wiley
    • 3
  • Susan Bowyer
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of EnvironmentHealth and Natural Resources, Division of Maternal and Child HealthWashington
  2. 2.Department of PediatricsUniversity of Rochester School of MedicineRochester
  3. 3.Department of PediatricsEast Carolina University School of MedicineGreenville

Personalised recommendations