Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada : JOGC = Journal d'obstetrique et gynecologie du Canada : JOGC · 2023
"We're Going to Book This for You": Threats to Informed Decision-Making in the Down Syndrome Determination Experience.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sangster Sarah L, Lawson Karen L
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To identify and describe threats to informed decision-making at key junctures of the Down syndrome (DS) determination experience.
METHODS: We conducted 32 narrative interviews with 42 participants (10 couples and 22 individuals). Participants relayed their stories of receiving their child's or a prospective child's DS determination. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically.
RESULTS: We identified the following 5 threats to informed decision-making: routinization of screening, screening for reassurance's sake, equating an openness to screening with an openness to testing and termination, misunderstanding and miscommunicating about probability, and a lack of up-to-date, accurate, neutral information.
CONCLUSIONS: The results contribute to an existing body of literature on the DS determination experience with a uniquely Canadian lens. The threats outline how well-intended counselling can ultimately undermine reproductive autonomy and informed decision-making. With knowledge of how these seemingly harmless behaviours threaten informed decision-making and reproductive autonomy, care providers can modify their counselling to lessen their impact.
METHODS: We conducted 32 narrative interviews with 42 participants (10 couples and 22 individuals). Participants relayed their stories of receiving their child's or a prospective child's DS determination. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically.
RESULTS: We identified the following 5 threats to informed decision-making: routinization of screening, screening for reassurance's sake, equating an openness to screening with an openness to testing and termination, misunderstanding and miscommunicating about probability, and a lack of up-to-date, accurate, neutral information.
CONCLUSIONS: The results contribute to an existing body of literature on the DS determination experience with a uniquely Canadian lens. The threats outline how well-intended counselling can ultimately undermine reproductive autonomy and informed decision-making. With knowledge of how these seemingly harmless behaviours threaten informed decision-making and reproductive autonomy, care providers can modify their counselling to lessen their impact.