Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

A comparison of attitudes towards prenatal diagnosis and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis

By Chloe Louise Miller


Technological advances in prenatal screening and diagnosis mean that it is now possible to test for a wide range of congenital conditions (Hewison et al., 2007). Traditionally testing has been carried out during pregnancy (prenatal diagnosis, PND). However, advances in technology have made it possible for diagnosis of an embryo created through in vitro fertilisation, prior to implantation into the womb (pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, PGD). This means that women can avoid the birth of a child with a genetic condition without the stress of terminating a pregnancy. This raises questions about what women want from reproductive technologies, as it means they are making decisions based not only on the condition diagnosed but also on the technology used to test.\ud \ud Two studies were carried out to examine this further. In the first study, 216 participants completed a questionnaire either based on PND or PGD. Participants were asked whether they would terminate a pregnancy (PND condition) or avoid implantation (PGD condition) following diagnosis of five different genetic conditions, ranging in severity.\ud \ud The results suggest an interaction between the technology (PND or PGD) and the severity of the genetic condition diagnosed, such that for the most and least severe conditions, the number of people choosing to terminate/avoid implantation was similar for the PND and PGD groups. However for conditions in the middle range of severity significantly more people said they would avoid implantation. A within subjects interview study was carried out to explore this further and thematic analysis identified a number of themes that influenced participants’ responses.\ud \ud Overall, the results suggest that PGD may be more acceptable for women in some cases. Women considering diagnoses are likely to benefit from detailed information about both PND and PGD in order to make a fully informed decision as to which is best for them.\ud \u

Publisher: School of Medicine (Leeds)
Year: 2010
OAI identifier:

Suggested articles


  1. (2009b). How amniocentesis is performed.
  2. 10 th, 2010, from Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA)
  3. 10 th, 2010, from 93 Office for National Statistics (2009b). Birth summary tables,
  4. 21 st, 2010, from NHS direct (2009a). How chorionic villus sampling is performed.
  5. (2001). A measure of informed choice.
  6. (1997). A prospective comparative study on transabdominal chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis performed at 10-13 week's gestation.
  7. (2006). Ambivalent attitudes towards pre-implantation genetic diagnosis in Germany.
  8. (2007). An informal online learning community for student mental health at university: a preliminary investigation.
  9. (2002). Attitude of at-risk subjects towards preimplantation genetic diagnosis of alpha- and beta-thalassaemias in Hong Kong. Prenatal Diagnosis,
  10. (2006). Attitudes to prenatal and preimplantation diagnosis in Saudi parents at genetic risk.
  11. (2007). Attitudes to prenatal testing and termination of pregnancy for fetal abnormality: a comparison of white and Pakistani women in the UK.
  12. (1971). Attitudes towards objects as predictors of single and multiple behaviour criteria.
  13. (2009). Authority decision on PGD policy.
  14. (2000). Average age of mother at childbirth: Social Trends 33. Retrieved
  15. (1987). Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice.
  16. (2003). Chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis: what are the risks in current practice?
  17. (2004). Clothing and embodiment: men managing body image and appearance.
  18. (2008). Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
  19. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In
  20. (2003). Gender differences in attitudes to prenatal testing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
  21. (1995). Genetic Malformation in Children, its Causes, and the Islamic View in Preventive Procedure. Dar Al-Hekma:
  22. (2003). Genetics and the disabled. Retrieevd 16 th
  23. (2006). HFEA data shows improvement in IVF success rates.
  24. HFEA statement on a licence to screen for homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. Retrieved October 8 th, 2008, from 8th Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA)
  25. (1990). Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act
  26. (2010). Interviewer effects in public health surveys.
  27. (2005). Invasive Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques. Seminars in Perinatology,
  28. (2002). Issues and concerns of couples presenting for preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD).
  29. (1989). Models of human social behaviour. In
  30. (1993). Narrative analysis.
  31. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
  32. (2004). Patients' opinions regarding preimplantation genetic diagnosis in a Latin American fertility clinic.
  33. (1995). Predicting Health Behaviour.
  34. (1997). Preimplantation diagnosis and other reproductive options: attitudes of male and female carriers of recessive disorders.
  35. (1991). Preimplantation diagnosis: a patient perspective.
  36. (2002). Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) – 89 Guiding Principles for Commissioners of NHS services. Retrieved May 21st, 2010, from dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_4118935.pdf
  37. (1998). Preimplantation genetic diagnosis as an alternative to amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling: Psychosocial and ethical aspects. Patient Education and Counseling,
  38. (2000). Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: patients' experiences and attitudes. Human Reproduction,
  39. (1998). Prenatal diagnosis of down syndrome: mothers’ reflections on supports needed from diagnosis to birth.
  40. (2002). Procedural risks versus theology: chorionic villus sampling for Orthodox Jews at less than 8 weeks' gestation.
  41. (1994). Psychological implications and acceptability of preimplantation diagnosis.
  42. (2008). Qualitative Psychology. A Practical Guide for Research Methods.
  43. (2000). Reactions to prenatal testing: reflection of religiosity and attitudes toward abortion and people with disabilities.
  44. (1992). Retrieved August 6 th, 2010, from
  45. (1995). Sample size in qualitative research.
  46. (2010). Screening tests for you and your baby.
  47. (1988). Termination of pregnancy following diagnosis of fetal malformation: the need for improved follow-up services.
  48. (2005). The digital divide in Europe (No. 38): Report published by the European Community. Luxembourg: European Community.
  49. (1995). The theory of planned behaviour and health behaviours. In
  50. (1997). Theory-led thematic analysis: social identification in small companies. In
  51. (1974). towards objects as predictors of single and multiple behaviour criteria.
  52. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development:
  53. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting behaviour.
  54. (1981). Unidimensional Scaling.
  55. (2008). Using electronic surveying to assess psychological distress within the U.K. student population: a multi-site pilot investigation.
  56. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology.
  57. (1979). Variables that moderate the attitude-behavior relation: Results of a longitudinal survey.
  58. (2005). Women’s perceptions of similarities and differences between conditions for which prenatal testing may be offered. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.