Genetic counseling gone awry: miscommunication between prenatal genetic service providers and Mexican-origin clients
Amniocentesis, and other prenatal genetic tests, have become a well-established feature of modern prenatal care. But these tests place a considerable decision-making burden on the expectant mothers to whom they are offered: the genetic issues involved are complex and the appropriate course of action sometimes ambiguous. Genetic counseling aims to help pregnant clients make an informed decision about prenatal genetic tests. But the clientele of prenatal genetic counseling has changed significantly in the years since the practice was established. Clients were once a self-selected group of women well-informed about the genetic services being offered. In contrast, clients now include an increasing number of women, particularly ethnic minority women, who had no prior knowledge of genetic testing, but were found to be at risk of birth defects after routine screening. Little is known about how well genetic counseling serves the needs of this new clientele. This paper investigates the possibility that miscommunication between genetic counselors and their Mexican-origin clients contributed to the higher rates of amniocentesis refusal. We interviewed 156 pregnant Mexican-origin women who screened positive on a blood test routinely offered in California to detect birth defects. We also observed the genetics consultations of a sub-sample of the women. We identified five common sources of miscommunication: (1) Medical jargon; (2) The non-directive nature of counseling; (3) The inhibitions of counselors stemming from misplaced cultural sensitivity; (4) Problems of translation; (5) Problems of trust. We found that many Mexican-origin women are skeptical of genetic testing and do not easily surrender their own lay theories about the causes of their condition. In order to dislodge the misunderstandings of their clients, counselors must give clients the opportunity to air their own views, however contrary to those of genetics professionals these may be.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 56 (2003)
Issue (Month): 9 (May)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:56:y:2003:i:9:p:1933-1946. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.