Role of affective temperaments on decision-making processes of preferring invasive karyotype tests

Year 2021, Volume: 46 Issue: 4, 1387 - 1393, 30.12.2021

Erol Arslan , Gökçe Naz Küçükbaş , Çiğdem Akcabay , Duru Saygin Gülbahar Mete Sucu

https://doi.org/10.17826/cumj.978204

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between patient temperament and preference for invasive prenatal tests.
Materials and Methods: This was a prospective study of 337 pregnant women who had increased risk of having a fetus with Down syndrome. Their temperament profile was determined by using the temperament evaluation of TEMPS-A. Women were grouped as accepting (study) or declining (control) to perform an invasive test.
Results: 284 pregnancies were included in the final analyzes. The study group had more likely employed and had a higher level of education level. There was no predominant temperament in 247 (87%) women. Hyperthymic temperament had the highest scores (11.2 ± 4.1) among other four temperament types. Study group patients had lower scores for anxious and depressive temperaments compared with control groups.
Conclusion: Women who had a less anxious or depressive personality were more likely to prefer an invasive prenatal test. In addition, employment and higher educational status were correlated with undergoing invasive prenatal testing.

Keywords

affective temperament, anxious, depressive, invasive tests

Mizaç özelliklerinin invaziv karyotip testlerini seçme kararları üzerine olan etkisi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı gebelerin mizaç özellikleri ile invaziv testi tercih etmeleri arasındaki ilişkinin değerlendirilmesi. amaçlanmıştır.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Mevcut çalışma fetüste Down sendromu açısından artmış riske sahip 337 gebeliğin prospektif değerlendirilmesini içermektedir. Hastaların mizaç özellikleri TEMPS-A skalası aracılığıyla belirlenmeye çalışılmıştır. Gebeler invaziv test yapılmasını kabul edenler (çalışma) ve etmeyenler (kontrol) şeklinde iki gruba ayrılmıştır.
Bulgular: Nihai analizler 284 gebe üzerinden yapılmıştır. Çalışma grubundaki hastalarda düzenli bir işte çalışma oranı ve eğitim seviyesi kontrol grubuna göre daha yüksek bulunmuştur. Hastaların 247'sinde (%87) baskın bir mizaç saptanmadı. Bununla birlikte en yüksek skor hipertimik mizaca (11.2 ± 4.1) ait olarak bulundu. Çalışma grubundaki hastalar daha düşük anksiyetik (ve depresif (mizaç skorlarına sahiplerdi.
Sonuç: Daha düşük anksiyöz ya da depresif mizaç özelliklerine sahip hastalar invaziv tanı testlerini daha yüksek oranda tercih etmektedirler. Buna ek olarak düzenli bir işte çalışma ve daha yüksek eğitim durumu da invaziv prenatal testi yaptırmayla ilişkilidir.

Keywords

mizaç, anksiyöz, depresif, invaziv testler, amniyosentez

References

• 1. Mai CT, Isenburg JL, Canfield MA, Meyer RE, Correa A, Alverson CJ, et al. National population-based estimates for major birth defects, 2010-2014. Birth Defects Res. 2019;111(18):1420-35.
• 2. Öcal DF TE, Cekmez Y, Gultekin IB, Akdulum MF, Mutlu MF, Biri A. Knowledge level, attitude and behaviours about down sydrome screening among Turkish pregnant women. Medeniyet Med J. 2016;31(2):98-104.
• 3. Practice Bulletin No. 162: Prenatal Diagnostic Testing for Genetic Disorders. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127(5):e108-e22.
• 4. Theodora M, Antsaklis A, Antsaklis P, Blanas K, Daskalakis G, Sindos M, et al. Fetal loss following second trimester amniocentesis. Who is at greater risk? How to counsel pregnant women? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(4):590-5.
• 5. Ternby E, Axelsson O, Annerén G, Lindgren P, Ingvoldstad C. Why do pregnant women accept or decline prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome? J Community Genet. 2016;7(3):237-42.
• 6. Sadlecki P, Grabiec M, Walentowicz P, Walentowicz-Sadlecka M. Why do patients decline amniocentesis? Analysis of factors influencing the decision to refuse invasive prenatal testing. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18(1):174.
• 7. García E, Timmermans DR, van Leeuwen E. The impact of ethical beliefs on decisions about prenatal screening tests: searching for justification. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66(3):753-64.
• 8. Bromley B, Shipp TD, Lyons J, Groszmann Y, Navathe RS, Benacerraf BR. What is the importance of second-trimester "soft markers" for trisomy 21 after an 11- to 14-week aneuploidy screening scan? J Ultrasound Med. 2014;33(10):1747-52.
• 9. Nyberg DA, Souter VL, El-Bastawissi A, Young S, Luthhardt F, Luthy DA. Isolated sonographic markers for detection of fetal Down syndrome in the second trimester of pregnancy. J Ultrasound Med. 2001;20(10):1053-63.
• 10. Viora E, Errante G, Bastonero S, Sciarrone A, Campogrande M. Minor sonographic signs of trisomy 21 at 15-20 weeks' gestation in fetuses born without malformations: a prospective study. Prenat Diagn. 2001;21(13):1163-6.
• 11. Vahip S, Kesebir S, Alkan M, Yazici O, Akiskal KK, Akiskal HS. Affective temperaments in clinically-well subjects in Turkey: initial psychometric data on the TEMPS-A. J Affect Disord. 2005;85(1-2):113-25.
• 12. Akiskal KK, Akiskal HS. The theoretical underpinnings of affective temperaments: implications for evolutionary foundations of bipolar disorder and human nature. J Affect Disord. 2005;85(1-2):231-9.
• 13. Lutgendorf MA, Stoll KA. Why 99% may not be as good as you think it is: limitations of screening for rare diseases. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(7):1187-9.
• 14. World Medical A. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79(4):373-4.
• 15. Buckwalter JG, Stanczyk FZ, McCleary CA, Bluestein BW, Buckwalter DK, Rankin KP, et al. Pregnancy, the postpartum, and steroid hormones: effects on cognition and mood. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 1999;24(1):69-84.
• 16. Yazici E, Uslu Yuvaci H, Yazici AB, Cevrioglu AS, Erol A. Affective temperaments during pregnancy and postpartum period: a click to hyperthymic temperament. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2018;34(3):265-9.
• 17. Yazici E, Terzi H, Bosgelmez S, Yazici AB, Zincir SB, Kale A. Affective temperaments in pregnancy. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2014;30(12):894-8.
• 18. Seror V, L'Haridon O, Bussières L, Malan V, Fries N, Vekemans M, et al. Women's Attitudes Toward Invasive and Noninvasive Testing When Facing a High Risk of Fetal Down Syndrome. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(3):e191062.
• 19. Salomon LJ, Sotiriadis A, Wulff CB, Odibo A, Akolekar R. Risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling: systematic review of literature and updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019;54(4):442-51.
• 20. Weichert A, Braun T, Deutinger C, Henrich W, Kalache KD, Neymeyer J. Prenatal decision-making in the second and third trimester in trisomy 21-affected pregnancies. J Perinat Med. 2017;45(2):205-11.
• 21. Cederholm M, Sjödén PO, Axelsson O. Psychological distress before and after prenatal invasive karyotyping. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001;80(6):539-45.
• 22. Klein DN, Kotov R, Bufferd SJ. Personality and depression: explanatory models and review of the evidence. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2011;7:269-95.
• 23. Leykin Y, Roberts CS, Derubeis RJ. Decision-Making and Depressive Symptomatology. Cognit Ther Res. 2011;35(4):333-41.