Accessible Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter April 17, 2020

Women’s decisional conflict in the pathway of prenatal screening and testing: an explorative study within Finnish public maternity care

An Chen, Henni Tenhunen, Paulus Torkki, Seppo Heinonen, Paul Lillrank and Vedran Stefanovic

Abstract

Objectives

To explore women’s decisional conflict in the pathway of prenatal screening and testing (PreST) in Finland and to evaluate a counseling service.

Methods

Self-completion surveys were conducted at two medical settings (screening and further testing) of PreST. Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) was the main measure. Different types of statistical tests were used to compare women’s decisional conflict at different medical settings of PreST, and before-after pre-test counseling. Multivariable linear regressions analyzed the influences of the medical settings and other factors on women’s decisional conflict.

Results

Compared to women in population-based screening, women in further testing (before pre-test counseling) were more likely to feel well informed (P < 0.001), had increased values clarity (P < 0.001), but more likely experienced uncertainty (P = 0.040). Besides medical settings, maternal age, gravidity and previous experience of fetal aneuploidy significantly influenced decisional conflict. After counseling, screen-positive women felt better informed (P < 0.001), had increased values clarity (P < 0.001), perceived more support (P < 0.001), and had better decision certainty (P < 0.001) than before counseling.

Conclusions

Medical settings influence women’s decisional conflict during PreST. Individual counseling is effective in improving screen-positive women’s decisional conflict. This research adds knowledge and experience on developing decision-making supports across the pathway of PreST.


Corresponding author: Vedran Stefanovic, PhD, MD, Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Fetal Medicine, Senior Consultant, Senior Lecturer, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Haartmaninkatu 2, 00290 Helsinki, Finland

Acknowledgments

The work reported here was highly supported by the staff of the Fetomaternal Medical Center and delivery hospitals in Helsinki. Special gratitude is owed to Ms. Satu Leminen, Ms. Minna Richards and Ms. Maaria Puupponen. Ms. Eija.Raussi-Lehto and Mr. Antti Niemi from Helsinki Metropolia University of Applied Sciences made great contributions to the research.

  1. Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

  2. Research funding: This paper was financially supported by Aalto University, Helsinki University Hospital and TEKES (Business Finland).

  3. Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.

  4. Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individuals included in this study.

  5. Ethical approval: This study was approved by the HUS Ethical Committee (permission number: 220/13/03/03/2015).

  6. Data availability statement: The dataset generated and analyzed for this study is not publicly available due to the restrictions claimed in the document of the HUS (The Hospital District of Helsinki and Uusimaa) research permission. But the data are available from the HUS Committee for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. For requesting the access to quantitative data, please contact HUS Surgery and Ethics Committee for gynaecology and obstetrics, pediatrics and psychiatry. Presenting Official: Heli Nevanlinna, p. +358 9 4717 1750. Office Secretary: Piia Paavilainen, p. +358 504 279 493. For concerning other issues related to the quantitative data, please contact Dr. Vedran Stefanovic (vedran.stefanovic@hus.fi), who is one of the authors of the manuscript.

References

1. Lou S, Mikkelsen L, Hvidman L, Petersen OB, Nielsen CP. Does screening for Down’s syndrome cause anxiety in pregnant women? A systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2015;94:15–27.Search in Google Scholar

2. Schoonen H, van Agt H, Essink-Bot M-L, Wildschut H, Steegers E, de Koning H. Informed decision-making in prenatal screening for Down’s syndrome: what knowledge is relevant? Patient Educ Couns 2011;84:265–70.Search in Google Scholar

3. Sutherland S, Farrell RM, Lockwood C. Genetic screening and testing in an episode-based payment model: preserving patient autonomy. Obstet Gynecol 2014;124:987–91.Search in Google Scholar

4. Stefanovic V. The importance of pre-and post-test counseling for prenatal cell-free DNA screening for common fetal aneuploidies. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2019;19:201–15.Search in Google Scholar

5. Allyse M, Sayres LC, Goodspeed T, Michie M, Cho MK. “Don’t want no risk and don’t want no problems”: public understandings of the risks and benefits of noninvasive prenatal testing in the United States. AJOB Empir Bioeth 2015;6:5–20.Search in Google Scholar

6. Lippman A. The genetic construction of prenatal testing. In: Rothenberg KH, Elizabeth JT, editors. Women and prenatal testing: facing the challenges of genetic technology. Columbus: Ohio State University Press; 1994. p. 9.Search in Google Scholar

7. Marteau TM, Dormandy E, Michie S. A measure of informed choice. Health Expect 2001;4:99–108.Search in Google Scholar

8. Raffle AE. Information about screening–is it to achieve high uptake or to ensure informed choice? Health Expect 2001;4:92–8.Search in Google Scholar

9. Dahl K, Hvidman L, Jørgensen FS, Kesmodel US. Knowledge of prenatal screening and psychological management of test decisions. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011;38:152–7.Search in Google Scholar

10. Potter BK, O’Reilly N, Etchegary H, Howley H, Graham ID, Walker M, et al. Exploring informed choice in the context of prenatal testing: findings from a qualitative study. Health Expect 2008;11:355–65.Search in Google Scholar

11. Deans Z, Newson AJ. Should non-invasiveness change informed consent procedures for prenatal diagnosis? Health Care Anal 2011;19:122–32.Search in Google Scholar

12. Brondino N, Colombini G, Morandotti N, Podavini F, De Vidovich G, Formica M, et al. Psychological correlates of decision-making during prenatal diagnosis: a prospective study. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 2013;34:68–74.Search in Google Scholar

13. Nagle C, Gunn J, Bell R, Lewis S, Meiser B, Metcalfe S, et al. Use of a decision aid for prenatal testing of fetal abnormalities to improve women’s informed decision making: a cluster randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN22532458]. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2008;115:339–47.Search in Google Scholar

14. Caleshu C, Shiloh S, Price C, Sapp J, Biesecker B. Invasive prenatal testing decisions in pregnancy after infertility. Prenat Diagn 2010;30:575–81.Search in Google Scholar

15. Green JM, Hewison J, Bekker HL, Bryant LD, Cuckle HS. Psychosocial aspects of genetic screening of pregnant women and newborns: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2004;8:iii, ix–x.Search in Google Scholar

16. Garcia E, Timmermans D, van Leeuwen E. Reconsidering prenatal screening: an empirical–ethical approach to understand moral dilemmas as a question of personal preferences. J Med Ethics 2009;35:410–4.Search in Google Scholar

17. Aune I, Möller A. ‘I want a choice, but I don’t want to decide’: a qualitative study of pregnant women’s experiences regarding early ultrasound risk assessment for chromosomal anomalies. Midwifery 2012;28:14–23.Search in Google Scholar

18. Ternby E, Ingvoldstad C, Annerén G, Lindgren P, Axelsson O. Information and knowledge about Down syndrome among women and partners after first trimester combined testing. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2015;94:329–32.Search in Google Scholar

19. Cloutier M, Gallagher L, Goldsmith C, Akiki S, Barrowman N, Morrison S. Group genetic counseling: an alternate service delivery model in a high risk prenatal screening population. Prenat Diagn 2017;37:1112–9.Search in Google Scholar

20. Lo T-K, Chan KY-K, Kan AS-Y, So P-L, Kong C-W, Mak S-L, et al. Decision outcomes in women offered noninvasive prenatal test (NIPT) for positive Down screening results. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2017;32:348–50.Search in Google Scholar

21. Thompson-Leduc P, Turcotte S, Labrecque M, Légaré F. Prevalence of clinically significant decisional conflict: an analysis of five studies on decision-making in primary care. BMJ Open 2016;6:e011490.Search in Google Scholar

22. Janis IL, Mann L. Decision making: a psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: The Free Press; 1977.Search in Google Scholar

23. LeBlanc A, Kenny DA, O’Connor AM, Légaré F. Decisional conflict in patients and their physicians: a dyadic approach to shared decision making. Med Decis Making 2009;29:61–8.Search in Google Scholar

24. Légaré F, LeBlanc A, Robitaille H, Turcotte S. The decisional conflict scale: moving from the individual to the dyad level. Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen 2012;106:247–52.Search in Google Scholar

25. Voss C, Perks H, Sousa R, Witell L, Wünderlich NV. Reflections on context in service research. J Serv Manage 2016;27:30–6.Search in Google Scholar

26. Bryant LD, Bown N, Bekker HL, House A. The lure of ‘patient choice’. Br J Gen Pract 2007;57:822–6.Search in Google Scholar

27. Hartwig TS, Borregaard Miltoft C, Malmgren CI, Tabor A, Jørgensen FS. High risk–what’s next? A survey study on decisional conflict, regret and satisfaction among high-risk pregnant women making choices about further prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy. Prenat Diagn 2019;39:635–42.Search in Google Scholar

28. Gekas J, Langlois S, Ravitsky V, Audibert F, van den Berg DG, Haidar H, et al. Non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal chromosome abnormalities: review of clinical and ethical issues. Appl Clin Genet 2016;9:15–26.Search in Google Scholar

29. Mackie F, Hemming K, Allen S, Morris R, Kilby M. The accuracy of cell-free fetal DNA-based non-invasive prenatal testing in singleton pregnancies: a systematic review and bivariate meta-analysis. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2017;124:32–46.Search in Google Scholar

30. Chen A, Tenhunen H, Torkki P, Peltokorpi A, Heinonen S, Lillrank P, et al. Facilitating autonomous, confident and satisfying choices: a mixed-method study of women’s choice-making in prenatal screening for common aneuploidies. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2018;18:119.Search in Google Scholar

31. Chen A, Lillrank P, Tenhunen H, Peltokorpi A, Torkki P, Heinonen S, et al. Context-based patient choice management in healthcare. Int J Health Care Qual Assur 2018;31:52–68.Search in Google Scholar

32. Chen A, Tenhunen H, Torkki P, Heinonen S, Lillrank P, Stefanovic V. Considering medical risk information and communicating values: a mixed-method study of women’s choice in prenatal testing. PLoS One 2017;12:e0173669.Search in Google Scholar

33. Chen A, Tenhunen H, Torkki P, Heinonen S, Lillrank P, Stefanovic V. Women’s choices for invasive or non-invasive testing: influence of gestational age and service delivery. Prenat Diagn 2016;36:1217–24.Search in Google Scholar

34. O’Connor AM. User manual-decisional conflict scale 1993 [updated 2010]. Ottawa: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; 2010.Search in Google Scholar

35. O’Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making 1995;15:25–30.Search in Google Scholar

36. Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, Barry M, Bennett C, Eden K, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2017. Report No.: 1469-493X.Search in Google Scholar

37. Li LC, Adam PM, Backman CL, Lineker S, Jones CA, Lacaille D, et al. Proof-of-concept study of a web-based methotrexate decision aid for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res 2014;66:1472–81.Search in Google Scholar

38. Georgsson Öhman S, Saltvedt S, Waldenström U, Grunewald C, Olin-Lauritzen S. Pregnant women’s responses to information about an increased risk of carrying a baby with Down syndrome. Birth 2006;33:64–73.Search in Google Scholar

39. Lewis C, Hill M, Chitty LS. Women’s experiences and preferences for service delivery of non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy in a public health setting: a mixed methods study. PLoS One 2016;11:e0153147.Search in Google Scholar

40. Houtman D, Bakkeren I, Galjaard R, Polak M, Busschbach J, Tibben A, et al. Offering a choice between NIPT and invasive PND in prenatal genetic counseling: the impact of clinician characteristics on patients’ test uptake. Eur J Hum Genet 2019;27:235–43.Search in Google Scholar

41. Vigod S, Hussain-Shamsy N, Grigoriadis S, Howard LM, Metcalfe K, Oberlander TF, et al. A patient decision aid for antidepressant use in pregnancy: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2016;17:110.Search in Google Scholar

42. Walton GD, Ross LE, Stewart DE, Grigoriadis S, Dennis C-L, Vigod S. Decisional conflict among women considering antidepressant medication use in pregnancy. Arch Womens Ment Health 2014;17:493–501.Search in Google Scholar

43. Ritchie KC, Chorney J, Hong P. Parents’ decisional conflict, self-determination and emotional experiences in pediatric otolaryngology: a prospective descriptive–comparative study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2016;86:114–7.Search in Google Scholar

44. Orom H, Biddle C, Underwood III W, Nelson CJ, Homish DL. What is a “good” treatment decision? Decisional control, knowledge, treatment decision making, and quality of life in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Med Decis Making 2016;36:714–25.Search in Google Scholar

45. Pavličević I, Škrabić S, Malički M, Merćep AH, Marušić M, Marušić A. Decisional conflict and vaccine uptake: cross-sectional study of 2012/2013 influenza season in Croatia. Arch Med Sci 2015;11:788–95.Search in Google Scholar

46. Witting M, Harala R. The official statistics of Finland: education level of the Finnish population (Finnish title: Suomen virallinen tilasto (SVT): Väestön koulutusrakenne). Appendix table: The provinces of level of education, gender and graduates (Finnish title: Maakunnat koulutustasomittaimen, sukupuolen ja tutkinnon suorittaneiden). Helsinki: Statistics Finland; Cited 2014 November 6; Available from: .Search in Google Scholar

Supplementary Material

The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2019-0450).

Received: 2019-12-07
Accepted: 2020-03-23
Published Online: 2020-04-17
Published in Print: 2020-07-28

©2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston