Premium
The discourse around usefulness, morality, risk and trust: a focus group study on prenatal genetic testing
Author(s) -
Pivetti Monica,
Montali Lorenzo,
Simonetti Giorgia
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
prenatal diagnosis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.956
H-Index - 97
eISSN - 1097-0223
pISSN - 0197-3851
DOI - 10.1002/pd.3990
Subject(s) - morality , focus group , test (biology) , genetic testing , psychology , social psychology , focus (optics) , prenatal screening , dimension (graph theory) , prenatal diagnosis , pregnancy , developmental psychology , medicine , sociology , epistemology , genetics , paleontology , fetus , physics , anthropology , optics , biology , philosophy , mathematics , pure mathematics
Objective This study explores the underlying values and beliefs that guide women's reasoning on prenatal genetic test (PGT) uptake, as framed by their own words, during a group discussion, in a Catholic country such as Italy. Methods Women's reasoning was explored by means of five focus group consisting of seven pregnant women and 13 new mothers. Results The focus group material content was analysed using the Nudist software. The discourse around PGT was rooted into four frames of reference: The usefulness dimension was used to express the positions in favour of PGT, whereas morality, risk and trust were used to express negative evaluations on such a technology. Participants advocated for themselves the choice of being tested, besides giving some credit to the partner's opinion. Moreover, participants reported little knowledge on PGT. Conclusion The research shed some light on the frames of reference used by participants to build their positions on PGT uptake, confirming the public's ability to translate scientific accounts into personally meaningful information. A more complete understanding of the reasons for decisions to test would help counsellors to better communicate with women and couples, and to better assist them to make a better informed testing decision. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.