Abstract
The number of women of advanced maternal age (AMA), as well as the number of AMA women who utilize assisted reproductive technology (ART), has increased, yet very few studies have been conducted to understand their experience. The purpose of this study was to examine the differences in genetic risk assessment and decision-making between two groups of AMA women: those who had natural pregnancies and those who had ART pregnancies. The main hypothesis of the study was that AMA women with natural pregnancies would be more likely to elect prenatal diagnostic procedures than would AMA women with ART pregnancies because the latter would have greater anxiety about the risk of miscarriage. The alternative hypothesis was that the ART experience would desensitize women to invasive procedures, leading them to view prenatal diagnostic procedures as low-risk.
The method used for study was a questionnaire, administered over a 7-month period of time at the Stanford University Hospital Genetic Counseling Clinic. Case study interviews were later conducted to obtain detailed information about individuals' experiences as women of advanced maternal age.
The data indicated that the use of assisted reproductive technology did not shape the women's decision whether to undergo prenatal diagnostic testing, but the sample size was very small (p > .05). Trends in questionnaire and interview responses suggested that maternal age and the associated risk of fetal abnormality were the predominant factors shaping the risk assessment of the women in the study, not the use of ART. The alternative hypothesis, that ART may lead to desensitization toward prenatal diagnostic procedures, was supported by the interviews.
Article PDF
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pearson, M., Nich, J. Genetic risk assessment in women over 35: natural pregnancies compared to assisted reproductive technology pregnancies. Genet Med 2, 102 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1097/00125817-200001000-00185
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00125817-200001000-00185