Volume 155, Issue 6
Research Article

Balanced information about Down syndrome: What is essential?

Kathryn B. Sheets

Corresponding Author

E-mail address: katie.sheets@duke.edu

Division of Medical Genetics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina

Division of Medical Genetics, Duke University Medical Center, 595 LaSalle Street, GSRB1, Box 103857, Durham, NC 27710.Search for more papers by this author
Robert G. Best

Division of Clinical Genetics, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina

Search for more papers by this author
Campbell K. Brasington

Department of Clinical Genetics, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, North Carolina

Search for more papers by this author
Madeleine C. Will

National Down Syndrome Society, Washington, District of Columbia

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 05 May 2011
Citations: 26

How to Cite this Article: Sheets KB, Best RG, Brasington CK, Will MC. 2011. Balanced information about Down syndrome: What is essential? Am J Med Genet Part A 155:1246–1257.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore the perspectives of genetic counselors and parents of children with Down syndrome to define essential information for the initial discussion of a new diagnosis. We compared information given in both prenatal and postnatal settings, and also aimed to distinguish differences between the informational needs of parents and the information genetic counselors provide. Online surveys were distributed to members of the National Down Syndrome Congress, National Down Syndrome Society, and National Society of Genetic Counselors. Participants included 993 parents of children with Down syndrome and 389 genetic counselors. Participants rated 100 informational features about Down syndrome as Essential, Important, or Not Too Important for inclusion in the first discussion of the diagnosis. Responses identified 34 essential informational items for the initial discussion of Down syndrome, including clinical features, developmental abilities, a range of prognostications, and informational resources. Healthcare providers should consider incorporating these items in their initial discussion of a diagnosis in both prenatal and postnatal settings. Statistically significant differences between parent and genetic counselor responses illustrate that information is valued differently and that parents appreciate information about the abilities and potential of people with Down syndrome, as opposed to clinical details. Balancing clinical information with other aspects of the condition, as well as a better understanding of the information parents consider most important, may enable healthcare professionals to more effectively satisfy families' informational needs following a new diagnosis of Down syndrome. © 2011 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Number of times cited according to CrossRef: 26

  • Is preparation a good reason for prenatal genetic testing? Ethical and critical questions, Birth Defects Research, 10.1002/bdr2.1651, 112, 4, (332-338), (2020).
  • Counselling in Tuberous Sclerosis Complex: a survey on content and satisfaction in the Netherlands, European Journal of Paediatric Neurology, 10.1016/j.ejpn.2020.01.004, (2020).
  • Experiences and outcomes following diagnosis of congenital foetal anomaly and medical termination of pregnancy: A phenomenological study, Journal of Clinical Nursing, 10.1111/jocn.15162, 29, 7-8, (1220-1237), (2020).
  • “We don't know what we don't know”: Providing information about communication to families of children with Down syndrome, Child: Care, Health and Development, 10.1111/cch.12658, 45, 3, (423-432), (2019).
  • Building and Connecting: Family Strategies for Developing Social Support Networks for Adults With Down Syndrome, Journal of Family Nursing, 10.1177/1074840718823578, (107484071882357), (2019).
  • Building trust and improving communication with parents of children with Trisomy 13 and 18: A mixed-methods study, Palliative Medicine, 10.1177/0269216319860662, (026921631986066), (2019).
  • Evaluating Health Visitors' Existing Knowledge of Down Syndrome and the Effect of a Training Workshop, Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 10.1111/jppi.12271, 16, 1, (30-36), (2018).
  • Decisional Support for Expectant Parents, Noninvasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT), 10.1016/B978-0-12-814189-2.00013-X, (217-233), (2018).
  • Parental Perspectives Regarding Outcomes of Very Preterm Infants: Toward a Balanced Approach, The Journal of Pediatrics, 10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.03.006, (2018).
  • An assessment of health, social, communication, and daily living skills of adults with Down syndrome, American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 10.1002/ajmg.a.38721, 176, 6, (1389-1397), (2018).
  • Changing Needs for Information and Support in an Online System for Parents of Children With Kidney Disease, Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease, 10.1177/2054358117714999, 4, (205435811771499), (2017).
  • The need to know: The information needs of parents of infants with an intellectual disability—a qualitative study, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 10.1111/jan.13321, 73, 11, (2600-2608), (2017).
  • The first year: the support needs of parents caring for a child with an intellectual disability, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 10.1111/jan.13056, 72, 11, (2738-2749), (2016).
  • Measuring and communicating meaningful outcomes in neonatology: A family perspective, Seminars in Perinatology, 10.1053/j.semperi.2016.09.009, 40, 8, (571-577), (2016).
  • Beyond the Genetic Diagnosis: Providing Parents What They Want to Know, Pediatrics in Review, 10.1542/pir.2015-0092, 37, 7, (269-278), (2016).
  • Informed decision-making about prenatal cfDNA screening: An assessment of written materials, Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, 10.1016/j.jemep.2016.05.004, 2, 3, (362-371), (2016).
  • Midwives' views on appropriate antenatal counselling for congenital anomaly tests: Do they match clients' preferences?, Midwifery, 10.1016/j.midw.2013.08.012, 30, 6, (600-609), (2014).
  • End-of-life decisions for extremely low-gestational-age infants: Why simple rules for complicated decisions should be avoided, Seminars in Perinatology, 10.1053/j.semperi.2013.07.006, 38, 1, (31-37), (2014).
  • Arrogance-Based Medicine: Guidelines Regarding Genetic Testing in Children, The American Journal of Bioethics, 10.1080/15265161.2013.879951, 14, 3, (15-16), (2014).
  • Neonatal diagnosis of Down syndrome in the Netherlands: suspicion and communication with parents, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 10.1111/jir.12125, 58, 10, (953-961), (2014).
  • Presenting life with cystic fibrosis: a Q‐methodological approach to developing balanced, experience‐based prenatal screening information, Health Expectations, 10.1111/hex.12113, 18, 5, (1349-1362), (2013).
  • Effects of a Genetic Counseling Model on Mothers of Children with Down Syndrome: A Brazilian Pilot Study, Journal of Genetic Counseling, 10.1007/s10897-013-9619-x, 22, 6, (784-794), (2013).
  • Women's knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about Down syndrome: A qualitative research study, American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 10.1002/ajmg.a.35340, 158A, 6, (1355-1362), (2012).
  • Call for change in prenatal counseling for Down syndrome, American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 10.1002/ajmg.a.35197, 158A, 3, (482-484), (2012).
  • Prenatal testing for intellectual disability: Misperceptions and reality with lessons from down syndrome, Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 10.1002/ddrr.135, 17, 1, (27-31), (2012).
  • What is a “Balanced” Description? Insight from Parents of Individuals with Down Syndrome, Journal of Genetic Counseling, 10.1007/s10897-011-9417-2, 21, 1, (35-44), (2011).

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.