4.4 Article

Women's experience of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis: a qualitative study

Journal

PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS
Volume 30, Issue 8, Pages 771-777

Publisher

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/pd.2542

Keywords

POD; qualitative; interviews; lived experience

Funding

  1. University of Sydney
  2. Northern Medical Research Foundation
  3. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council's (NHMRC) Centre for Clinical Research Excellence in Infection and Bioethics in Haematological Malignancies
  4. The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [ID 350 989]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To provide an in-depth account of the experience of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). Method Exploratory qualitative interview study. Participants were recruited from one major in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinic in Sydney, Australia. Data were collected through 14 in-depth interviews with women at different stages of POD, utilized a thematic approach and facilitated by NVivo software. Results Women reported using POD as empowering and led them to feel in control of their reproductive futures. Health professionals who did not tell women about PG D were seen as a barrier to accessing treatment. The ability to select embryos free from the genetic condition (for which it was at risk) alleviated stress. Despite this, stress experienced with POD was significant for women, and often related to past experiences of reproductive trauma and grief. The outcome of embryos was also the cause of stress for women. Conclusion Women undergoing POD have a diverse range of reproductive and genetic histories, psychosocial circumstances and world views that all interact and impact their experience of PGD. Successful support and care of these women should address all of these factors and tailor the support provided for women using this physically and emotionally complex form of reproductive technology. Copyright (C) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available