Procedure-related miscarriages and down syndromeâaffected births: implications for prenatal testing based on women's preferences

OBJECTIVE: To determine how pregnant women of varying ages, races, ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds value procedure-related miscarriage and Down-syndrome-affected birth. METHODS: We studied cross-sectionally 534 sociodemographically diverse pregnant women who sought care at obstetric clinics and practices throughout the San Francisco Bay area. Preferences for procedure-related miscarriage and the birth of an infant affected by Down syndrome were assessed using the time trade-off and standard gamble metrics. Because current guidelines assume that procedure-related miscarriage and Down syndrome-affected birth are valued equally, we calculated the difference in preference scores for those two outcomes. We also collected detailed information on demographics, attitudes, and beliefs. RESULTS: On average, procedure-related miscarriage was preferable to Down syndrome-affected birth, as evidenced by positive differences in preference scores for them (time trade-off difference: mean = 0.09, median = 0.06; standard gamble difference: mean = 0.11, median = 0.02; P <.001 for both, one-sample sign test). There was substantial subject-to-subject variation in preferences that correlated strongly with attitudes about miscarriage, Down syndrome, and diagnostic testing. CONCLUSION: Pregnant women tend to find the prospect of a Down syndrome-affected birth more burdensome than a procedure-related miscarriage, calling into question the equal risk threshold for prenatal diagnosis. Individual preferences for those outcomes varied profoundly. Current guidelines do not appropriately consider individual preferences in lower-risk women, and the process for developing prenatal testing guidelines should be reconsidered to better reflect individual values.