Skip to main content
Log in

Adjunct Prenatal Testing: Patient Decisions Regarding Ethnic Carrier Screening and Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization

  • Published:
Journal of Genetic Counseling

Abstract

Little has been reported regarding how women make decisions about genetic carrier screening for Ashkenazi Jewish genetic disease and cystic fibrosis (CF), and for fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) during pregnancy. Thirty-seven women who underwent genetic counseling and prenatal diagnosis were interviewed about their prenatal decision making. Respondents were largely Caucasian (95%), and undergoing prenatal diagnosis because of maternal age (78%). Sixty-three percent of those who reported having genetic carrier screening correctly defined it; 83% felt positively about it. Primary reasons reported for electing screening were: to get information, to be prepared, perception of risk, wanting peace of mind and percieved inability to care for an affected child. Women who declined screening felt they had very little or no risk, and some were deterred by cost. Ninety-five percent of respondents elected to have FISH; most were motivated by its speed in providing information and peace of mind or by timing of when the procedure was performed. Those who declined FISH reported being less concerned about having an affected child, receiving bad news, or waiting 2 weeks for results and slightly less affected by their “feelings toward medical testing” or physician's suggestion. These findings suggest decision-making factors differ between those electing and declining adjunct prenatal testing and increased knowledge about these factors may impact the way in which these services are offered by health care professionals. Prospective research with a larger population will be useful in further delineating the factors that influence prenatal decisions about adjunct testing measures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) (1998). Position statement on carrier testing for Canavan disease. Bethesda, MD: Author.

  • American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) (1995). Screening for Tay Sachs disease: No. 162. Washington, DC.

  • American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) (2001a). Genetic screening for hemoglobinopathies no. 238, July 2000. Int J Gynecol Obstet, 74, 309-310.

    Google Scholar 

  • American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) and American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG)(2001b). Preconception and prenatal carrier screening for cystic fibrosis: Clinical and laboratory guidelines. Washington, DC.

  • American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) (1998). Patient fact sheet: Genetic screening for birth defects. Birmingham, AL.

  • Browner, C., Preloran, H., & Simon, J. (1999). Ethnicity, bioethics, and prenatal diagnosis: The amniocentesis decisions of Mexican-origin women and their partners. Am J Public Health, 89(11), 1658-1666

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekwo, E., Seals, B., Kim, J., Williamson, R., & Hanson, J. (1985). Factors influencing maternal estimates of genetic risk. Am J Med Genet, 20, 491-504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, J. (1994). Serum screening for Down's syndrome: The experiences of obstetricians in England and Wales. BMJ, 309, 769-772.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohut, R., Dewey, D., & Love, E. (2002). Women's knowledge of prenatal ultrasound and informed choice. J Genet Couns, 11(4), 265-276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesser, Y., & Rabinowitz, J. (2001). Elective amniocentesis in low-risk pregnancies: Decision making in the era of information and uncertainty. Am J Public Health, 91(4), 639-641.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung, W., Chitayat, D., Seaward, G., Windrim, R., Ryan, G., Barrett, J., et al. (2001). Role of amniotic fluid interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis in patient management. Prenat Diagn, 21, 327-332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marini, T., Sullivan, J., & Naeem, R. (2002). Decisions about amniocentesis by advanced maternal age patients following maternal serum screening may not always correlate clinically with screening results: Need for improvement in informed consent process. Am J Med Genet, 109, 171-175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marteau, T., & Croyle, R. (1998). The new genetics: Psychological responses to genetic testing. BMJ, 316(7132), 693-696.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marteau, T., & Dormandy, E. (2001). Facilitating informed choice in prenatal testing: How well are we doing? Am J Med Genet, 106, 185-190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michie, S., Smith, D., & Marteau, T. (1999). Prenatal tests: How are women deciding? Prenat Diagn, 19, 743-748.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miedzybrodzka, Z., Hall, M., Mollison, J., Templeton, A., Russell, I., Dean, J., et al. (1995). Antenatal screening for carriers of cystic fibrosis: Randomised trial of stepwise versus couple screening. BMJ, 310(6976), 353-357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pergament, E., Chen, P., Thangavelu, M., & Fiddler, M. (2000). The clinical application of interphase FISH in prenatal diagnosis. Prenat Diagn, 20, 215-220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santalahti, P., Aro, A., Hemminki, E., Helenius, H., & Ryynanen, M. (1998). On what grounds do women participate in prenatal screening? Prenat Diagn, 18, 153-165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiloh, S., Eini, N., Ben-Neria, Z., & Sagi, M. (2001). Framing of prenatal screening test results and women's health-illness orientations as determinants of perceptions of fetal health and approval of amniocentesis. Psychol Health, 16, 313-325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiloh, S., & Sagi, M. (1989). Effect of framing on the perception of genetic recurrence risks. Am J Med Genet, 33, 130-135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D., & Marteau, T. (1995). Detecting fetal abnormality: Serum screening and fetal anomaly scans. Br J Midwif, 3, 133-136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, A. (1997). The efficacy of FISH analysis for common aneuploidies in relieving the anxiety of patients awaiting prenatal diagnosis results. Master Degree Thesis, Northwestern University.

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Overwalle, F., & Jordens, K. (2002). An adaptive connectionist model of cognitive dissonance. Pers Soc Psychol Rev, 6(3), 204-231.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kelly E. Ormond.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sturm, E.L., Ormond, K.E. Adjunct Prenatal Testing: Patient Decisions Regarding Ethnic Carrier Screening and Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization. Journal of Genetic Counseling 13, 45–63 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOGC.0000013194.53410.6f

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOGC.0000013194.53410.6f

Navigation