Patient attitudes toward prenatal diagnostic testing during antenatal care in an urban population

Abstract

Objective: Investigate factors that influence the decision to accept or decline diagnostic testing for pregnant women referred for genetic counseling.Methods: Cross sectional anonymous survey of pregnant women undergoing genetic counseling at a tertiary care referral center. Subjects' perceived risk of procedure related loss and fetal chromosomal problem were obtained via survey where patients rated risk from 0 (no risk) to 10 (highest risk).Results: There were no differences in sociodemographic factors between women undergoing a diagnostic procedure compared to those not undergoing a procedure.As the perceived risk for having a baby with genetic problem increased by one point, the estimated odds of having the diagnostic procedure increased by 43% controlling for the perceived risk of procedure related loss (p < .0001). Similarly, as the perceived risk of miscarriage increased by one point, the odds of having the diagnostic procedure decreased by 40%, controlling for the perceived risk of having a baby with a genetic problem (p < .0001). The main reason women cited for not undergoing a procedure was fear of procedure related loss.Conclusions: Pregnant women that decline diagnostic testing have a higher perceived risk of procedure related loss and lower perceived risk of fetal chromosomal abnormality than those who accept. Key Points What is already known about this topic?� There has been an exponential increase in prenatal genetic testing options available (in both screening and diagnostic testing) with a simultaneous decrease in diagnostic testing. Our objective was to investigate the factors that influence the decision to accept or decline diagnostic testing What does this study add?� Pregnant women that decline diagnostic testing have a higher perceived risk of procedure related loss and lower perceived risk of fetal chromosomal abnormality than those who accept diagnostic testing and there are no differences in sociodemographic factors 888 -