Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22445765›Full record

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.

Patricia E Hershberger, Agatha M Gallo, Karen Kavanaugh, Ellen Olshansky, Alan Schwartz, Ilan Tur-Kaspa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Reasons Why Young Women Accept or Decline Fertility Preservation After Cancer Diagnosis.Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing : JOGNN
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Patricia E HershbergerDepartment of Women, Children, & Family Health Science, University of Illinois at Chicago, 845 S. Damen Avenue (MC802), Room 840, Chicago, IL 60612, USA. phersh@uic.edu
Agatha M Gallo
Karen Kavanaugh
Ellen Olshansky
Alan Schwartz
Ilan Tur-Kaspa

Funding

UIC Program for Interdisciplinary Careers in Women's Health ResearchK12HD055892 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI GELLER, STACIE E. · 2007 to 2016
$4.9M
PGD: Couples Decision Making at the Genetic and Reproductive InterfaceR03NR010351 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI HERSHBERGER, PATRICIA · 2008 to 2009
$157k
NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD055892NINR NIH HHS R03 NR010351
6 · The paper itself

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

Decision MakingAdultFamily CharacteristicsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPregnancyPreimplantation DiagnosisQualitative ResearchUnited States

Identifiers

PMID22445765
PMCPMC3328546

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.