Health-related quality of life in prenatal diagnosis

References

• Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. Prenatal Diagnosis: Background and Impact on Individuals. Research Studies of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. Volume 12. Minister of Supply and Services, Ottawa, Canada (1993).
   Google Scholar
• MacKay IF, Fraser FC. The History and Evolution of Prenatal Diagnosis. In: Prenatal Diagnosis: Background and Impact on Individuals. Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, Research Studies of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. Volume 12. Minister of Supply and Services, Ottawa, Canada, 1–69 (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Canadian Collaborative CVS- Amniocentesis Clinical Trial Group. Multicentre randomized clinical trial of chorion villus sampling and amniocentesis. Lancet1(8628), 1–6 (1989).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lippman A, Tomkins DJ, Shime J, Hamerton JL. Canadian multicentre randomized clinical trial of chorion villus sampling and amniocentesis. Prenat. Diagn. 12(5), 385–476 (1992).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• •Summarizes evidence from the Canadian Chorionic Villi Sampling-Amniocentesis Trial.
   Google Scholar
• MRC Working Party on the Evaluation of Chorion Villus Sampling. Medical Research Council European Trial of chorion villus sampling. Lancet 337(8756), 1491–1499 (1991).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fava GA, Tambini G, Michelacci L, Linder JR, Pathak D, Bovicelli L. Hostility in women before and after amniocentesis. Reprod Med. 28(1), 29–34 (1983).
   Google Scholar
• Mooney G, Lange M. Antenatal screening: what constitutes 'benefit'? Soc. Sci. Med. 37(7), 873–78 (1993).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• •Highlights the importance of considering the value of information per se in the evaluation of prenatal diagnosis programs.
   Google Scholar
• Adler NE. Psychosocial issues of therapeutic abortion. In: Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology Youngs DD, Ehrhadt AA (Eds). Appleton-Century Crofts, NY, USA 159–177 (1980).
   Google Scholar
• Blumberg BD, Golbus MS, Hanson KH. The psychological sequelae of abortion performed for a genetic indication. Am. Obs. Gyn. 122(7), 799–808 (1975).
   Google Scholar
• Phipps S, Zinn AB. Psychological response to amniocentesis: i. mood state and adaptation to pregnancy. Am. j Med. Genet. 25(1), 131–142 (1986).
   Google Scholar
• Phipps S, Zinn AB. Psychological response to amniocentesis: ii. effects of coping style. AinJ Med. Genet. 25(1), 143–148 (1986).
   Google Scholar
• Caccia N, Johnson JM, Robinson GE, Barna T Impact of prenatal testing on maternal—fetal bonding: chorionic villus sampling versus amniocentesis. Am j Obs. Gyn. 165(4), 1122–1125 (1991).
   Google Scholar
• Robinson G, Gamer DM, Olmstead MP, Shime J, Hutton EM, Crawford BM. Anxiety reductions following CVS and genetic amniocentesis. Am. j Obstet. Gynecol 159(4), 953–956 (1988).
   Google Scholar
• Spencer JW, Cox DN. Emotional responses of pregnant women to chorionic villi sampling or amniocentesis. Am. j Obstet. Gynecol 157(5), 1155–1160 (1987).
   Google Scholar
• Spencer JW, Cox DN. A comparison of chorionic villi sampling and amniocentesis: acceptability of procedure and maternal attachment to pregnancy. Obstet. Gynecol 72(5), 714–718 (1988).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Robinson GE, Carr ML, Wright C. Psychological reactions to pregnancy loss after prenatal diagnostic testing: preliminary results. J. PTchosom. Obstet. Gynaecol 12,181–192 (1991).
   Google Scholar
• Grant KR. Perceptions, attitudes and experiences of prenatal diagnosis: a winnipeg study of women over 35. In: Prenatal Diagnosis: Background and Impact on Individuals. Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, Research Studies of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. Volume 12. Minister of Supply and Services, Ottawa, Canada, 185–346 (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Torrance GW, Furlong W Feeny D. Health utility estimation. Expert Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2 (2), 99–108 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. A review. Health Econ. 5(1), 1–30 (1986).
   Google Scholar
• Torrance GW. Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. Chien. Dis. 40(6), 593–600 (1987).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Torrance GW, Feeny D. Utilities and quality-adjusted life-years. int. j 7chrrol.Assess. Healthcare 5(4), 559–575 (1989).
   Google Scholar
• Feeny D. A utility approach to assessing health-related quality of life. Med. Care, 38\(Suppl. 9), 11-151-154 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Furlong WJ, Feeny DH, Torrance GW, Barr RD. The Health Utilities Index (HUT) System for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Ann. Med 33(5), 375–384 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabin R, de Charro E EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann. Med. 33(5), 337–343 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Pauker SP, Pauker SG. Prenatal diagnosis: a directive approach to genetic counseling using decision analysis. Yalef Biol. Med. 50(3), 275–289 (1977).
   Google Scholar
• •Original version of a decision analysis model for deciding on whether or not to undergo prenatal diagnostic testing.
   Google Scholar
• Pauker SP, Pauker SG. The amniocentesis decision: an explicit guide for parents. Birth Defects Orig. Arctic. Ser. 15 (5C), 289–324 (1979).
   Google Scholar
• Pauker SP, Pauker SG. The amniocentesis decision: 10 years of decision analytic experience. Birth Defects Orig. Attic Ser. 23(3), 151–169 (1987).
   Google Scholar
• Felder S, Werblow A, Robra BP. A priori risk and optimal test accuracy in prenatal diagnosis. Med. Decis. Making23(5), 406–413 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Feeny DH, Torrance GW. Incorporating utility based quality-of-life assessment measures in clinical trials. Two examples. Med. Care 27 3(Suppl.), S190—S204 (1989).
   Google Scholar
• ••Presents a widely used decision analysismodel for assessing the effects of prenatal diagnosis.
   Google Scholar
• Wonderling D. Expected utility assessment of two methods for the prenatal diagnosis of Down symdrome: transcervical chorionic villus sampling and second trimester amniocentesis. Msc. Health Economics Thesis, University of York, York, UK (1994).
   Google Scholar
• Kuppermann M, Shiboski S, Feeny, D, Elkin EP, Washington AE. Can preference scores for discrete states be used to derive preference scores for an entire path of events? An application to prenatal diagnosis. Med. Decis. Making- 17(1), 42–55 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• •Provides important evidence the scores for a series of events are not equal to the time-weighted sum of the scores for each of the individual events.
   Google Scholar
• Kuppermann M, Feeny D, Gates E, Posner SF, Blumberg B, Washington AE. Preferences of women facing a prenatal diagnostic choice: long-term outcomes matter most. Prenat. Diagn. 19(8), 711–716 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kuppermann M, Goldberg JD, Nease RF Jr, Washington AE. Who should be offered prenatal diagnosis? The 35 year old question. Aimj Public Health 89 (2), 160–163 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Harris RA, Washington AE, Feeny D, Kuppermann M. Decision analysis of prenatal testing for chromosomal disorders: what do the preferences of pregnant women tell us? Genet. Test. 5(1), 23–32 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• •Questions the traditional risk—benefit criterion of balancing the risk of procedurally-related pregnancy loss with the risk of a detectable chromosomal abnormality used to justify 35 years of age late maternal age guideline for access to prenatal diagnostic testing.
   Google Scholar
• Feeny DH, Townsend M, Furlong W et al Health-related quality of life assessment of prenatal diagnosis comparing chorionic villi sampling and amniocentesis: a technical report. McMaster University Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Number 2000–04 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Feeny DH, Townsend M, Furlong W et al. Health-related quality-of-life assessment of prenatal diagnosis comparing chorionic villi sampling and amniocentesis. Genet. Test. 6(1), 39–46 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ••Presents utility scores for states associatedwith process and outcome for prenatal diagnosis.
   Google Scholar
• Drugan A, Greb A, Johnson MP et al Determinants of parental decisions to abort for chromosome abnormalities. Prenat. Diagn. 10(8), 483–490 (1990).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Heckerling PS, Verp MS. Amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling for prenatal genetic testing: a decision analysis. j Gun. Epidemiol 44(7), 657–670 (1991).
   Google Scholar
• Heckerling PS, Verp MS. A cost-effectiveness analysis of amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling for prenatal diagnosis. Med. Care 32 (8), 863–880 (1994).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Heckerling PS, Verp MS, Hadro TA. Preferences of pregnant women for amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling for prenatal testing: comparison of patient choices and those of a decision-analytic model. .1. Gun. Epidemiol 47(11), 1215–1228 (1994).
   Google Scholar
• Heckerling PS, Verp MS, Albert N. The role of physician preferences in the choice of amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling for prenatal genetic testing. Genet. Test. 2(1), 61–66 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Verp MS, Heckerling PS. Use of decision analysis to evaluate patients' choices of diagnostic prenatal test. Am. j Med. Genet. 58(4), 337–344 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Kuppermann M, Nease RF, Learman LA, Gates E, Blumberg B, Washington EA. Procedure-related miscarriages and Down syndrome-affected births: implications for prenatal testing based on women's preferences. Obstet. Gynecol 96(4), 511–516 (2000). Provides empirical evidence that most patients provide scores for procedure-related losses that are much higher than the scores for having a Down syndrome child. Highlights the importance of the preferences of the individual in making decisions concerning prenatal diagnosis.
   Google Scholar
• Heckerling PS, Verp MS, Albert N. Prenatal testing for limb reduction defects. How patients' views affect their choice of CVS. Reprod Med. 42(2), 114–120 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Moyer A, Brown B, Gates E, Daniels M, Brown HD, Kuppermann M. Decisions about prenatal testing for chromosomal disorders: perceptions of a diverse group of pregnant women. j Womens Health Gend Based Med. 8(4), 521–531 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Thornton JG, Lilford RJ. Prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome: a method for measuring the consistency of women's decisions. Med. Decis Making- 10 (4), 288–293 (1990).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Drake ER, Engler-Todd L, O'Connor A, Surh LC, Hunter A. Development and evaluation of a decision aid about prenatal testing for women of advanced maternal age.J Genet. Cams. 8(4), 217–233 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Cappelli M, Surh L, Humphreys L et al Measuring women's preferences for breast cancer treatments and BRCA1/BRCA2 testing. Qual Life Res. 10(7), 595–607 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• O'Connor A, Boyd NF, Warde P, Stolbach L, Till JE. Eliciting preferences for alternative drug therapie in oncology: influence of treatment outcome description, elicitation technique and treatment experience on preferences. Chronic Dis. 40(8), 811–818 (1987).
   Google Scholar
• Levine MN, Gafni A, Markham B, McFarlane D. A bedside decision instrument to elicit patient's preference concerning adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Ann. Intern. Med. 117(1), 53–58 (1992).
   Google Scholar
• Eckman MH. Patient-centered decision making: a view of the past and a look toward the future. Med. Deck Making 21(3), 441–247 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Goel V, Sawka, CA, Thiel EC, Gort EH, O'Connor. Randomized trial of a patient decison aid for choice of surgical treatment for breast cancer. Med. Decis. NIaking21(1), 1–6 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Brandenburg H, Groenhuijzen J, Jahoda MG et al Reproductive behavior following spontaneous loss of pregnancy after prenatal diagnosis. Gun. Genet. 42(3), 149–151 (1992).
   Google Scholar
• Brandenburg H, De Koning W Jahoda MG et al Reproductive behavior and prenatal diagnosis following genetic termination of pregnancy in women of advanced maternal age. Prenat. Diagn. 12(12), 1031–1035 (1992).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar