Andrea Kalfoglou | University of Maryland Baltimore County (original) (raw)

Papers by Andrea Kalfoglou

Journal of Investigative Medicine, Nov 1, 2002

Wolters Kluwer Health may email you for journal alerts and information, but is committed to maint... more Wolters Kluwer Health may email you for journal alerts and information, but is committed to maintaining your privacy and will not share your personal information without your express consent. For more information, please refer to our Privacy Policy. ... Skip Navigation Links Home > ...

was established in April 2002 with a generous grant from Th e Pew Charitable Trusts. Th e Center ... more was established in April 2002 with a generous grant from Th e Pew Charitable Trusts. Th e Center is an objective source of information, research, analysis and policy options on reproductive genetics for the public, policymakers and the media. Th e Genetics and Public Policy Center acknowledges and thanks Th e Pew Charitable Trusts for their generous support. Th e opinions expressed in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily refl ect the view of Th e Pew Charitable Trusts.

Human Reproduction, Sep 1, 2008

BACKGROUND: MicroSort, a sperm-sorting technology for sex selection, may eventually be approved b... more BACKGROUND: MicroSort, a sperm-sorting technology for sex selection, may eventually be approved by the Food and Drug Administration and marketed to the public. Data on US public attitudes about the morally appropriate uses and regulation of this technology are lacking. METHODS: We conducted 20 focus groups in April 2003 with participants from five major US cities to identify the values that shape Americans' attitudes about the use and regulation of preconception sex selection (PSS) technology. One hundred and seventy-six individuals between the ages of 18 and 68 were assigned to groups ranging from 6 to 11 participants based on their location, sex, race/ethnicity, religion, age, education and parental status. Qualitative analysis of focus group transcripts was conducted using NVivo 2.0 software to determine beliefs and values that shape participants' opinions about the appropriate use and regulation of PSS. RESULTS: Most participants strongly favor using PSS to avoid X-linked genetic diseases. Although some participants were uncomfortable with the use of PSS for non-medical sex selection, believing it to be 'selfish' and inconsistent with parental love, they did not perceive the potential harms to be significant enough to warrant governmental intrusion into reproductive decisions. CONCLUSIONS: PSS should face little public opposition in the US if widely marketed.

Reproductive Biomedicine Online, Mar 1, 2013

County, where she teaches public health, research methods in health and public health ethics. Pre... more County, where she teaches public health, research methods in health and public health ethics. Previously, she was a research fellow at the National Human Genome Research Institute and a social science research coordinator at the Genetics and Public Policy Center, Johns Hopkins University. She has extensive experience in ethical and health-policy analysis related to human reproduction, genetics and research ethics. She is on the editorial board of the American Journal of Bioethics and a former Chair of the Ethics Special Interest Group within the American Public Health Association. She holds a PhD in public health policy and ethics from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Journal of Genetic Counseling, Feb 5, 2008

Genetic services for deafness are being increasingly sought due to the introduction of early hear... more Genetic services for deafness are being increasingly sought due to the introduction of early hearing detection and intervention programs, as well as the rapid progress in the identification of deafness genes. This study aimed to assess the motivations of consumers for pursuing genetic testing as well as their preferences for provision of these services. We conducted 5 focus groups consisting of hearing parents of deaf children, deaf parents, and unmarried deaf adults. Motivations for pursuing genetic testing included determining the etiology, helping to alleviate the guilt associated with the diagnosis of hearing loss in a child, and acquiring information to help them and other family members prepare for the future. Most participants thought that a genetic counselor/geneticist would be the most appropriate professional to provide genetics services. For culturally Deaf individuals, the communication method was seen as more important than the type of professional. Parents preferred that genetic evaluation, including testing, occur either immediately at or a few months after the audiologic diagnosis of hearing loss.

Genetics in Medicine, Dec 1, 2006

Progress in identifying genes for deafness together with implementation of universal audiologic s... more Progress in identifying genes for deafness together with implementation of universal audiologic screening of newborns has provided the opportunity for more widespread use of molecular tests to detect genetic forms of hearing loss. Efforts to assess consumer attitudes toward these advances have lagged behind. Methods: Consumer focus groups were held to explore attitudes toward genetic advances and technologies for hearing loss, views about newborn hearing screening, and reactions to the idea of adding molecular screening for hearing loss at birth. Focus group discussions were recorded, transcribed and analyzed. Results: Five focus groups with 44 participants including hearing parents of deaf children, deaf parents and young deaf adults were held. Focus group participants supported the use of genetic tests to identify the etiology of hearing loss but were concerned that genetic information might influence reproductive decisions. Molecular newborn screening was advocated by some; however, others expressed concern about its effectiveness. Conclusion: Documenting the attitudes of parents and other consumers toward genetic technologies establishes the framework for discussions on the appropriateness of molecular newborn screening for hearing loss and informs specialists about potential areas of public education necessary prior to the implementation of such screening.

Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 2005

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) providers and patients have a vested interest in policy r... more Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) providers and patients have a vested interest in policy related to the use and regulation of PGD. To understand their experiences and attitudes, 32 in-depth interviews were conducted. Participants included 13 people at risk of transmitting a single-gene alteration to their children (10/13 had actually used PGD to try to have an unaffected child) and 19 PGD service providers (four nurses, fi ve genetic counsellors, two reproductive endocrinologists, two geneticists, two physician-geneticists, two embryologists, and two laboratory directors). Virtually all participants supported the use of PGD to avoid severe, life-threatening genetic illness or to select embryos that are a tissue match for a sick sibling, but their attitudes varied signifi cantly over the appropriateness of using PGD to avoid adult-onset genetic disease, to select for sex, or to select for other non-medical characteristics. There was disagreement within the PGD provider community about whether or not PGD is experimental. Participants were more concerned about overzealous government regulation of PGD creating barriers to access than potential abuses of the technology, and expected the PGD provider community to take the lead in ensuring that PGD is used for ethically appropriate purposes.

AMA journal of ethics, Jun 1, 2016

Approximately 15 percent of women experience depression while pregnant or in the year following p... more Approximately 15 percent of women experience depression while pregnant or in the year following pregnancy. While antidepressants are usually effective and considered standard treatment for depression, concerns arise that what might be good for mom could be harmful for the baby. Medical evidence demonstrates that, on balance, treating mental illness with psychotropic medication along with talk therapy is in the best interest of both mother and baby; however, women may resist treatment because they overestimate the risks of medication and underestimate the risks of untreated mental illness. Clinicians can help address this perceived ethical dilemma and provide optimum care to their pregnant patients by collaborating with their patients on a treatment plan, informing them about the risks of untreated mental illness, and providing reassurance that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and many other psychotropic medications are appropriate care even if a woman is pregnant or breastfeeding. Treatment of depression and other mental illnesses with psychotropic medications during pregnancy can be confusing for both clinicians and pregnant women. The health and well-being of the woman must be considered, but so must that of the fetus. These considerations frequently create an ethical dilemma for a depressed pregnant woman: Should I take psychotropic medication while I'm pregnant? Perinatal Depression Perinatal depression occurs during pregnancy and up to 12 months after giving birth [1]. Risk factors include the following: • A personal or family history of depression, anxiety, or postpartum depression • Premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) • Inadequate support in caring for the baby • Financial stress

American Journal of Bioethics, Dec 1, 2001

The relationships oocyte donors have with lawyers, psychologists, and health care providers are e... more The relationships oocyte donors have with lawyers, psychologists, and health care providers are explored and recommendations to address conflicts of interest are suggested.

Cornell University Press eBooks, Jul 16, 2010

Fertility and Sterility, Oct 1, 2000

Objective: To learn what information oocyte donors were given and wanted to have about the use of... more Objective: To learn what information oocyte donors were given and wanted to have about the use of their oocytes and the outcome of the donation. Design: In-depth interviews. Setting: Participants recruited through IVF clinics, matching agency, the Internet, word of mouth, and newspaper ads. Participant(s): Thirty-three former oocyte donors and six women preparing to donate. Intervention(s): None. Main Outcome Measure(s): None. Result(s): Thirty-three former donors completed 66 donation cycles; 48 donation cycles were anonymous. Only 41% (16 of 39) of all participants were comfortable giving the recipient couple complete dispositional authority over the resulting embryos; the remainder wanted some control. One quarter did not want embryos used for research. Fifty-four percent (21 of 39) thought donation of excess embryos to another couple was acceptable, but one third wanted to be informed. Of the 25 anonymous donors, 6 learned the outcome of the donation; 14 others wanted to know. All hoped the donation was successful. Conclusion(s): Because oocyte donors' need for information varies, clinics should consider being more flexible in their disclosure policies. Disclosure about the possible uses of donor oocytes or embryos should be mandatory. Findings have implications for the informed consent and counseling processes.

SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks, Oct 11, 2012