4.7 Article

Attitudes of high-risk women toward preimplantation genetic diagnosis

Journal

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
Volume 91, Issue 6, Pages 2361-2368

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.03.019

Keywords

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis; BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2); hereditary breast and ovarian cancer

Funding

  1. H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute [RSGPB-07-019-01-CPPB]
  2. American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To explore the knowledge and attitudes toward preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) of women who have been personally affected by hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Design: A 33-item quantitative survey covering five domains, including demographics, knowledge and attitudes about PGD, usage of PGD, and informational needs. Setting: Attendees of a national conference for individuals and families affected by hereditary breast and ovarian cancer participated in the survey. Patient(s): Not applicable. Intervention(s): Not applicable. Main Outcome Measure(s): Frequencies and proportions were summarized for all variables, and Fisher's exact tests were conducted to test association between two discrete variables. Result(s): Of the women surveyed, only 32% had ever heard of PGD before taking the survey. None of the women surveyed had actually used PGD, and 44% believed they would not use it in the future. However, 57% of attendees believed that PGD was an acceptable option for high-risk individuals, and 74% believed that high-risk individuals should be given information about PGD. Conclusion(s): Healthcare professionals who serve cancer patients should consider incorporating information about PGD into patient education. Further research is needed to survey physicians and genetic counselors about their knowledge and opinions of PGD. (Fertil Steril (R) 2009;91:2361-8. (C) 2009 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available