Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to browse AJSM online!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Medical Decision Making
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Thornton, J. G.
Right arrow Articles by Lilford, R. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Thornton, J. G.
Right arrow Articles by Lilford, R. J.
Right arrowPubmed/NCBI databases
Medline Plus Health Information
*Down Syndrome
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Prenatal Diagnosis of Down's Syndrome

A Method for Measuring the Consistency of Women's Decisions

James G. Thornton, MD

Richard J. Lilford, PhD

A method was developed for judging the quality of womens' decision making in the field of prenatal diagnosis by measuring the internal consistency of their replies to a series of hypothetical decisions. Seventy-three nonpregnant women were interviewed using a lottery technique to elicit the risks of the birth of a Down's child at which they would request the two main procedures for prenatal diagnosis, amniocentesis and chorionic villus biopsy (CVB). The consistency of their replies was tested by performing a third lottery to elicit at what CVB related abortion risk the subject would choose CVB in preference to aminocentesis. Almost half the subjects were inconsistent, in that their indifference level on this third lottery differed by a factor of two or more from that expected from the first two lotteries.

Key Words: Key words: prenatal diagnosis • amniocentesis • placental biopsy • decision analysis • utility • Down's syndrome. (Med Decis Making 1990;10:288-293)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 10, No. 4, 288-293 (1990)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9001000407
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Decision AnalysisHome page
R. L. Keeney and D. A. Vernik
Analysis of the Biological Clock Decision
Decision Analysis, September 1, 2007; 4(3): 114 - 135.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
R. Lilford, A. Girling, D. Braunholtz, W. Gillett, J. Gordon, C. A. Brown, and A. Stevens
Cost-Utility Analysis When Not Everyone Wants the Treatment: Modeling Split-Choice Bias
Med Decis Making, January 1, 2007; 27(1): 21 - 26.
[Abstract] [PDF]