The study evaluated patient informed consent (IC) for the Quad screen and examined differences in IC between test acceptors and test refusers. A multidimensional model of IC was used.
Methods
Women seeking prenatal care at nine obstetrics clinics in a large Midwestern city completed surveys between February and December 2006. Surveys contained measures for three dimensions of IC: intention, understanding and controlling influence.
Results
56.2% of women did not meet criteria for all three of our dimensions of IC and therefore failed to give it. The failure rate was higher among women who choose to screen (72.6%) than women who choose not screen (50%) (p < 0.001). Women who met all criteria for IC were over three times less likley to choose to screen (or = 0.32, CI 0.17–0.62 (p < 0.01)) than women who did not meet criteria for IC.
Conclusion
The decision to screen for fetal anomalies is less of a deliberated action than the decision not to screen. Women who lack a fundamental understanding of the purpose and nature of the screen may be operating on the belief that the screen is part of standard care and presents no need to deliberate.
CaugheyABHopkinsLMNortonME. Chorionic villus sampling compared with amniocentesis and the difference in the rate of pregnancy loss. Obstet Gynecol2006; 108: 612–612.
2.
BennPAYingJBeazoglouT. Estimates for the sensitivity and false-positive rates for second trimester serum screening for down syndrome and trisomy 18 with adjustment for cross-identification and double-positive results. Prenat Diagn2001; 21: 46–51.
3.
SugarmanJMcCroryDCPowellD. Empirical research on informed consent: An annotated bibliography. Hastings Center Rep1999; 29: s1–s42.
4.
JacobyLHMaloyBCirenzaE. The basis of informed consent for BMT patients. Bone Marrow Transplant1999; 23: 711–711.
5.
SchoonenHMvan AgtHMEssink-BotML. Informed decision-making in prenatal screening for down's syndrome: What knowledge is relevant?. Patient Educ Couns2011; 84: 265–270.
6.
FedermanDGGoyalSKaminaA. Informed consent for PSA screening: Does it happen?. Eff Clin Pract1999; 2: 152–157.
7.
FavreRMoutelGDuchangeN. What about informed consent in first-trimester ultrasound screening for down syndrome?. Fetal Diagn Ther2008; 23: 173–184.
8.
FarrellRMNutterBAgatisaPK. Meeting patients' education and decision-making needs for first trimester prenatal aneuploidy screening. Prenat Diagn2011; 31: 1222–1228.
9.
SchoonenMvan der ZeeBWildschutH. Informing on prenatal screening for down syndrome prior to conception. An empirical and ethical perspective. Am J Med Genet A2012; 158A: 485–497.
10.
DahlKHvidmanLJørgensenFS. Knowledge of prenatal screening and psychological management of test decisions. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol2011; 38: 152–157.
11.
OrmondKEBanuvarSDalyA. Information preferences of high literacy pregnant women regarding informed consent models for genetic carrier screening. Patient Educ Counsel2009; 75: 244–250.
12.
MichieSDormandyEMarteauTM. The multi-dimensional measure of informed choice: A validation study. Patient Educ Counsel2002; 48: 87–91.
13.
van den BergMTimmermansDRten KateLP. Informed decision making in the context of prenatal screening. Patient Educ Counsel2006; 63: 110–117.
14.
MarkensSBrownerCPressN. ‘Because of the risks': How US pregnant women account for refusing prenatal screening. Soc Sci Med1999; 49: 359–369.
15.
McCollE. Cognitive interviewing. A tool for improving questionnaire design. Qual Life Res2006; 15: 571–573.
16.
FadenRRBeauchampTLKingNMP. A history and theory of informed consent, USA: Oxford University Press, 1986.
17.
SayREThomsonR. The importance of patient preferences in treatment decisions—challenges for doctors. BMJ2003; 327: 542–545.
18.
CharlesCGafniAWhelanT. Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: Revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med1999; 49: 651–661.
19.
SerorVVilleY. Prenatal screening for down syndrome: Women's involvement in decision-making and their attitudes to screening. Prenat Diagn2009; 29: 120–128.
20.
MarteauTMDormandyEMichieS. A measure of informed choice. Health Expect2001; 4: 99–108.
21.
FavreRDuchangeNVayssièreC. How important is consent in maternal serum screening for down syndrome in france? Information and consent evaluation in maternal serum screening for down syndrome: A french study. Prenat Diagn2007; 27: 197–205.
22.
van den BergMTimmermansDRKnolDL. Understanding pregnant women's decision making concerning prenatal screening. Health Psychol2008; 27: 430–437.
23.
HuntLMde VoogdKBCastañedaH. The routine and the traumatic in prenatal genetic diagnosis: Does clinical information inform patient decision-making?. Patient Educ Counsel2005; 56: 302–312.
24.
PressNBrownerCH. Why women say yes to prenatal diagnosis. Soc Sci Med1997; 45: 979–989.
25.
MichieSAllansonAArmstrongD. Objectives of genetic counselling: Differing views of purchasers, providers and users. J Public Health1998; 20: 404–404.
BennPCuckleHPergamentE. Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy: Current status and future prospects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol2013; 42: 15–33.
28.
AgarwalASayresLCChoMK. Commercial landscape of noninvasive prenatal testing in the united states. Prenat Diagn2013; 33: 521–531.
29.
VerweijEJde BoerMAOepkesD. Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis for down syndrome: No paradigm shift, just better testing… and it is already here!. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol2012; 40: 484–485.
30.
SchmitzDNetzerCHennW. An offer you can't refuse? Ethical implications of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis. Nat Rev Genet2009; 10: 515–515.
BennPAChapmanAR. Practical and ethical considerations of noninvasive prenatal diagnosis. JAMA2009; 301: 2154–2156.
33.
DillmanDA. Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method, New York, NY: Wiley, 2000.
34.
KeeterSMillerCKohutA. Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey. Public Opin Quart2000; 64: 125–148.
35.
KeeterSKennedyCDimockM. Gauging the impact of growing nonresponse on estimates from a national RDD telephone survey. Public Opin Quart2006; 70: 759–779.
36.
JohnsonTPChoYICampbellRT. Using community-level correlates to evaluate nonresponse effects in a telephone survey. Public Opin Quart2006; 70: 704–719.
37.
Cleary-GoldmanJMorganMAMaloneFD. Screening for down syndrome: Practice patterns and knowledge of obstetricians and gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol2006; 107: 11–17.
38.
DriscollDAMorganMASchulkinJ. Screening for down syndrome: Changing practice of obstetricians. Am J Obstet Gynecol2009; 200: 459. e1–e9.
39.
FisherBMVarnerMRoseNC. Antenatal screening tests: Knowledge and practice patterns of obstetricians in utah. Am J Med Genet Part A2006; 140: 2464–2468.
40.
FarrellRMDolginNFlockeSA. Risk and uncertainty: Shifting decision making for aneuploidy screening to the first trimester of pregnancy. Genet Med2011; 13: 429–429.
41.
PalmerCGSSainfortF. Toward a new conceptualization and operationalization of risk perception within the genetic counseling domain. J Genet Counsel1993; 2: 275–294.
42.
AustinJC. Re-conceptualizing risk in genetic counseling: Implications for clinical practice. J Genet Counsel2010; 19: 228–234.
