ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2012
The decision-making process of genetically at-risk couples considering preimplantation genetic diagnosis: initial findings from a grounded theory study.
Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perception of young adults with sickle cell disease or sickle cell trait about participation in the CHOICES randomized controlled trial.Journal of advanced nursing · 2016Trial
- Designing National Programmes for Expanded Carrier Screening: Results from a Discrete-Choice Experiment in Singapore.The patient · 2026Article
- The experience of "at-risk" status for familial frontotemporal dementia (fFTD) and its impact on reproductive decision-making: A qualitative study.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Let 'Pregnant Women Choose the Destiny for Themselves and Their Child'. How Fertility Clinic Digital Platforms Frame Preimplantation Genetic Testing (PGT) in Spain.Sociology of health & illness · 2025Article
- Aboriginal families living with MJD in remote Australia: questions of access and equity.International journal for equity in health · 2024Article
- Family planning and preimplantation testing: family experiences in congenital adrenal hyperplasia.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Article
- The effects of an online decision aid to support the reproductive decision-making process of genetically at risk couples-A pilot study.Journal of genetic counseling · 2023Article
- Motives and considerations regarding PGT in couples carrying a structural chromosomal abnormality: a qualitative exploration.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2020Article
- "I didn't take it too seriously because I'd just never heard of it": Experiential knowledge and genetic screening for thalassaemia in the UK.Journal of genetic counseling · 2019Article
- Patients' preimplantation genetic testing decision-making experience: an opinion on related psychological frameworks.Human reproduction open · 2019Article
- Pre-implantation genetic testing: decisional factors to accept or decline among in vitro fertilization patients.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2018Article
- Ethical issues in using the internet to engage participants in family and child research: A scoping review.PloS one · 2018Article
- Experiences of Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) in Sweden: a Three-Year Follow-Up of Men and Women.Journal of genetic counseling · 2017Article
- Comparing appropriateness and equivalence of email interviews to phone interviews in qualitative research on reproductive decisions.Applied nursing research : ANR · 2017Article
- The Impact of Fabry Disease on Reproductive Fitness.JIMD reports · 2017Article
- Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for inherited neurological disorders.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2014Review
- A qualitative inquiry of the financial concerns of couples opting to use preimplantation genetic diagnosis to prevent the transmission of known genetic disorders.Journal of genetic counseling · 2014Article
- Current issues in medically assisted reproduction and genetics in Europe: research, clinical practice, ethics, legal issues and policy. European Society of Human Genetics and European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2013Article
- Toward theoretical understanding of the fertility preservation decision-making process: examining information processing among young women with cancer.Research and theory for nursing practice · 2013Article
- Reasons Why Young Women Accept or Decline Fertility Preservation After Cancer Diagnosis.Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing : JOGNNArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Exponential growth in genomics has led to public and private initiatives worldwide that have dramatically increased the number of procreative couples who are aware of their ability to transmit genetic disorders to their future children. Understanding how couples process the meaning of being genetically at-risk for their procreative life lags far behind the advances in genomic and reproductive sciences. Moreover, society, policy makers, and clinicians are not aware of the experiences and nuances involved when modern couples are faced with using Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD). The purpose of this study was to discover the decision-making process of genetically at-risk couples as they decide whether to use PGD to prevent the transmission of known single-gene or sex-linked genetic disorders to their children. A qualitative, grounded theory design guided the study in which 22 couples (44 individual partners) from the USA, who were actively considering PGD, participated. Couples were recruited from June 2009 to May 2010 from the Internet and from a large PGD center and a patient newsletter. In-depth semi-structured interviews were completed with each individual partner within the couple dyad, separate from their respective partner. We discovered that couples move through four phases (Identify, Contemplate, Resolve, Engage) of a complex, dynamic, and iterative decision-making process where multiple, sequential decisions are made. In the Identify phase, couples acknowledge the meaning of their at-risk status. Parenthood and reproductive options are explored in the Contemplate phase, where 41% of couples remained for up to 36 months before moving into the Resolve phase. In Resolve, one of three decisions about PGD use is reached, including: Accepting, Declining, or Oscillating. Actualizing decisions occur in the Engage phase. Awareness of the decision-making process among genetically at-risk couples provides foundational work for understanding critical processes and aids in identifying important gaps for intervention and future research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.