I.

Objective To describe fertility patients' preferences for disposition of cryopreserved embryos and determine factors important to these preferences Design Cross-sectional survey conducted between June 2006 and July 2007 Setting Nine geographically diverse U.S. fertility clinics Participants 1020 fertility patients with cryopreserved embryos Interventions Self-administered questionnaire Main Outcome Measures Likelihood of selecting each of five conventional embryo disposition options: store for reproduction, thaw and discard, donate to another couple, freeze indefinitely, and donate for research; likelihood of selecting each of two alternative options identified in previous research: placement of embryos in the woman's body at an infertile time, and a disposal ceremony; importance of each of 26 considerations to disposition decisions; and views on the embryo's moral status. Results 54% of respondents with cryopreserved embryos were very likely to use them for reproduction, 21% were very likely to donate for research, 7% or fewer were very likely to choose any other option. Respondents who ascribed high importance to concerns about the health or well-being of the embryo, fetus, or future child were more likely to thaw and discard embryos or freeze them indefinitely. Conclusions Fertility patients frequently prefer disposition options not available to them or find available options unacceptable. Restructuring and standardizing the informed consent process and ensuring availability of all disposition options may benefit patients, facilitate disposition decisions and address problems of long term storage.

Racial-ethnic differences exist in prenatal diagnostic test use and associated outcomes in women aged 35 and older. Socioeconomic factors are partially responsible; patient education and preferences may play a role.

Pregnant women tend to find the prospect of a Down syndrome-affected birth more burdensome than a procedure-related miscarriage, calling into question the equal risk threshold for prenatal diagnosis. Individual preferences for those outcomes varied profoundly. Current guidelines do not appropriately consider individual preferences in lower-risk women, and the process for developing prenatal testing guidelines should be reconsidered to better reflect individual values.

BackgroundIn 2010, the NIH and ACOG recommended increasing women’s access to trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC). This study explored access to TOLAC in California, change in access since 2007 and 2010, and characteristics of TOLAC and non-TOLAC hospitals.MethodsBetween November 2011 and June 2012, charge nurses at all civilian California birth hospitals were surveyed about hospitals’ TOLAC availability and requirements for providers. VBAC rates were obtained from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD). Distance between hospitals was calculated using OSHPD geocoding.ResultsAll 243 birth hospitals that were contacted participated. In 2010, among the 56% TOLAC hospitals, the median VBAC rate among TOLAC hospitals was 10.8% (range 0-37.3%). The most cited reason for low VBAC rates was physician unwillingness to perform them, especially due to the requirement to be continually present during labor. TOLAC hospitals were more likely to be larger hospitals in urban communities with obstetrical residency training. However, there were six (11.3%) residency programs in non-TOLAC hospitals and 5 (13.5%) rural hospitals offering TOLAC. The majority of TOLAC hospitals had 24/7 anesthesia coverage and required the obstetrician to be continually present if a TOLAC patient was admitted; 17 (12.2%) allowed personnel to be 15-30 minutes away. TOLAC eligibility criteria included one prior cesarean (32.4%), spontaneous labor (52.5%), continuous fetal monitoring and intravenous access (99.3%), and epidural analgesia (19.4%). The mean distance from a non-TOLAC to a TOLAC hospital was 37 mi. with 25% of non-TOLAC hospitals more than 51 mi. from the closest TOLAC hospital.In 2012, 139 hospitals (57.2%) offered TOLAC, 16.6% fewer than in 2007. Since 2010, five hospitals started and four stopped offering TOLAC, a net gain of one hospital offering TOLAC with three more considering it. Only two hospitals cited change in ACOG guidelines as a reason for the change.ConclusionsDespite the 2010 NIH and ACOG recommendations encouraging greater access to TOLAC, 44% of California hospitals do not allow TOLAC. Of the 56% allowing TOLAC, 10.8% report fewer than 3% VBAC births. Thus, national recommendations encouraging greater access to TOLAC had a minor effect in California.

The purpose of this cross-sectional study of 999 socioeconomically and racially/ethnically diverse pregnant women was to explore prenatal genetic testing attitudes and beliefs and the role of external influences. Surveys in English, Spanish, and Chinese included questions regarding the value of testing, pregnancy, and motherhood; the acceptability of Down syndrome in the subject's community; and the role of social and cultural influences in prenatal testing decisions. We analyzed racial/ethnic differences in all attitudinal and external influence variables, controlling for age, relationship status, and socioeconomic status. We found statistically significant racial/ethnic group differences in familiarity with an individual with Down syndrome and in 10 of 12 attitude, belief, and external influence variables, even after controlling for other sociodemographic characteristics. We also observed substantial variation within racial/ethnic groups for each of these measures. Despite the statistically significant group differences observed, R(2) values for all multivariate models were modest and response distributions overlapped substantially. Social and familial contexts for prenatal testing decisions differ among racial/ethnic groups even after accounting for age, marital status, and other socioeconomic factors. However, substantial variation within groups and overlap between groups suggest that racial/ethnic differences play a small role in the social and familial context of prenatal genetic testing decisions.

II.

No abstract