Imperfect informed consent for prenatal screening: Lessons from the Quad screen

Melissa L. Constantine, Megan Allyse, M. Wall, R. De Vries, T. H. Rockwood

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)17-27
Number of pages11
JournalClinical Ethics
Volume9
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Informed Consent
Prenatal Diagnosis
Prenatal Care
Standard of Care
Elvitegravir, Cobicistat, Emtricitabine, Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate Drug Combination
Screening
Imperfect
Obstetrics

Keywords

  • Clinical ethics
  • Genetic screening
  • Informed consent

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Issues, ethics and legal aspects
  • Philosophy

Cite this

Imperfect informed consent for prenatal screening : Lessons from the Quad screen. / Constantine, Melissa L.; Allyse, Megan; Wall, M.; De Vries, R.; Rockwood, T. H.

In: Clinical Ethics, Vol. 9, No. 1, 01.01.2014, p. 17-27.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Constantine, Melissa L. ; Allyse, Megan ; Wall, M. ; De Vries, R. ; Rockwood, T. H. / Imperfect informed consent for prenatal screening : Lessons from the Quad screen. In: Clinical Ethics. 2014 ; Vol. 9, No. 1. pp. 17-27.
@article{e4c68984d6b643e3bb3a09f3c9fae404,
title = "Imperfect informed consent for prenatal screening: Lessons from the Quad screen",
abstract = "Objective: 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.",
keywords = "Clinical ethics, Genetic screening, Informed consent",
author = "Constantine, {Melissa L.} and Megan Allyse and M. Wall and {De Vries}, R. and Rockwood, {T. H.}",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/1477750913511339",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
pages = "17--27",
journal = "Clinical Ethics",
issn = "1477-7509",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Imperfect informed consent for prenatal screening

T2 - Lessons from the Quad screen

AU - Constantine, Melissa L.

AU - Allyse, Megan

AU - Wall, M.

AU - De Vries, R.

AU - Rockwood, T. H.

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - Objective: 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.

AB - Objective: 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.

KW - Clinical ethics

KW - Genetic screening

KW - Informed consent

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84901436049&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84901436049&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1477750913511339

DO - 10.1177/1477750913511339

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84901436049

VL - 9

SP - 17

EP - 27

JO - Clinical Ethics

JF - Clinical Ethics

SN - 1477-7509

IS - 1

ER -