Objectives: This study aims to find out whether offering prenatal screening for Down syndrome and neural tube defects influences pregnant women’s attitudes toward having a screening test. Methods: Women were randomised into a group that was offered prenatal screening and a group that was not offered screening (controls). Both groups completed questionnaires before screening was offered, after the offer (not the control group), and in the last trimester of pregnancy. Results: Women with a neutral attitude at baseline who accepted the screening test had a more positive attitude, decliners became more negative and the attitude of the control group did not change. Conclusion: Offering prenatal screening triggers a change in some pregnant women’s attitude regarding prenatal testing. This instability of women’s attitudes may pose a problem for determining whether some women made an informed choice.

Keywords:
Attitudes, Prenatal screening, Decision making, Informed choice
1.
Tabor A, Madsen M, Obel EB, Philip J, Bang J, Norgaard-Pedersen B: Randomised controlled trial of genetic amniocentesis in 4606 low-risk women. Lancet 1986;1:1287–1293.
2.
Health Council of the Netherlands: Prenatal Screening (2); Down syndrome, neural tube defects. The Hague, Health Council of the Netherlands, 2004, publication no. 2004/6.
3.
Marteau TM, Dormandy E, Michie S: A measure of informed choice. Health Expect 2001;4:99–108.
4.
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,1–109.
5.
Bekker H, Thornton JG, Airey C, Connelly J, Hewison J, Robinson M, Lilleyman J, MacIntosh M, Maule AJ, Michie S, Pearman A: Informed decision making: An annotated bibliography and systematic review. Health Technol Assess 1999;3:1–156.
6.
Michie S, Dormandy E, Marteau TM: The multi-dimensional measure of informed choice: a validation study. Patient Educ Couns 2002;48:87–91.
7.
Michie S, Dormandy S, Marteau TM: Informed choice: understanding knowledge in the context of screening uptake. Patient Educ Couns 2003;50:247–253.
8.
Eagly AH, Chaiken S: The nature of attitudes; in Howard E, Youngblood D (eds): The Psychology of Attitudes. New York, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1993, pp 1–22.
9.
Egan LC, Santos LR, Bloom P: The origins of cognitive dissonance. Evidence from children and monkeys. Psychol Sci 2007;18:978–983.
10.
Health Council of the Netherlands: Committee on the Population Screening Act: Population Screening Act: The Assesment of Permit Applications. The Hague, Health Council of the Netherlands, 1996, 1996/ 09WBO.
11.
Health Council of the Netherlands: Committee on the Population Screening Act: Population Screening Act: Prenatal Screening and Risk Perception. The Hague, Health Council of the Netherlands, 1999, 1999/ 04WBO.
12.
Van den Berg M, Timmermans DRM, Ten Kate LP, Van Vugt JMG, Van der Wal G: Are pregnant women making informed choices about prenatal screening? Genet Med 2005;7:332–338.
13.
Van den Berg M, Timmermans DRM, Kleinveld JH, Van Eijk JTM, Knol DL, Van der Wal G, Van Vugt JMG: Are counsellors’ attitudes influencing pregnant women’s attitudes and decisions on prenatal screening? Prenat Diagn 2007;27:518–524.
14.
Svenson O: Differentiation and consolidation theory of human decision making: A frame of reference for the study of pre- and post-decision processes. Acta Psychol 1992; 80:143–168.
15.
Svenson O: Values, affect and processes in human decision making: a differentiation and consolidation theory perspective; in Schneider SL, Shanteau J (eds): Emerging Perspectives on Judgment and Decision Research. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp 287–326.
16.
Van den Berg M, Timmermans DRM, Knol DL, Van Eijk JTM, De Smit DJ, Van Vugt JMG, Van der Wal G: Understanding pregnant women’s decision making concerning prenatal screening. Psychol Health, in press.
17.
Dormandy E, Hooper R, Michie S, Marteau TM: Informed choice to undergo prenatal screening: a comparison of two hospitals conducting testing either as part of a routine visit or requiring a separate visit. J Med Screen 2002;9:109–114.
18.
Festinger L: Conflict, Decision and Dissonance. Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1964.
19.
Van den Berg M, Timmermans DRM, Kleinveld JH, Garcia E, Van Vugt JMG, Van der Wal G: Accepting or declining the offer of prenatal screening for congenital defects: test uptake and women’s reasons. Prenat Diagn 2005;25:84–90.
20.
Brannon LA, Tagler, MJ, Eagly AH: The moderating role of attitude strength in selective exposure to information. J Exp Psychol 2007;43:611–617.
21.
Festinger L: A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1957.
© 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel
2008
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.