Table 4.
Comparisons between group 1 females and group 3 males for impact of facilitators on male partners’ decisions to pursue carrier screening
| Variables | Group 1 females (n = 372) | Group 3 males (n = 125) | Mann-Whitney U test | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | A | D | M | Mdn | n | A | D | M | Mdn | p | |
| Personal beliefs | |||||||||||
| To alleviate female partner worry | 371 | 342 (92.2%) | 29 (7.82%) | 2.41 | 3.00 | 125 | 115 (92.0%) | 10 (8.00%) | 2.51 | 3.00 | 0.0551 |
| To alleviate male partner worry | 367 | 318 (86.6%) | 49 (13.4%) | 2.20 | 2.00 | 125 | 102 (81.6%) | 23 (18.4%) | 2.09 | 2.00 | 0.260 |
| Male partner wanted more information about risk for this pregnancy and future pregnancies | 370 | 312 (84.3%) | 58 (15.7%) | 2.21 | 2.00 | 123 | 114 (92.7%) | 9 (7.32%) | 2.39 | 2.39 | 0.0216* |
| Test information might have changed their reproductive decisions | 371 | 261 (70.3%) | 110 (29.6%) | 1.89 | 2.00 | 124 | 89 (69.4%) | 38 (30.6%) | 1.91 | 2.00 | 0.957 |
| Female partner told male partner to have carrier screening | 370 | 235 (63.5%) | 135 (36.5%) | 1.72 | 2.00 | 125 | 74 (59.2%) | 51 (40.8%) | 1.57 | 2.00 | 0.125 |
| Male partner was curious | 371 | 227 (61.2%) | 144 (38.8%) | 1.59 | 2.00 | 124 | 96 (77.4%) | 28 (22.6%) | 1.85 | 2.00 | 0.00335** |
| The condition(s) the female partner is a carrier of is concerning to male partner | 371 | 223 (60.1%) | 148 (39.9%) | 1.72 | 2.00 | 125 | 88 (70.4%) | 37 (29.6%) | 1.86 | 2.00 | 0.178 |
| We have a family history of genetic and/or medical conditions | 371 | 118 (31.8%) | 253 (68.2%) | 1.02 | 2.00 | 124 | 30 (24.2%) | 94 (75.8%) | 0.98 | 1.00 | 0.966 |
| The risk for male partner to be a carrier seemed high | 370 | 54 (14.6%) | 316 (85.4%) | 0.71 | 1.00 | 124 | 13 (10.5%) | 111 (89.5)% | 0.73 | 1.00 | 0.387 |
| Logistics | |||||||||||
| Male partner liked that the test screened for many genetic conditions | 357 | 327 (91.6%) | 30 (8.40%) | 2.24 | 2.00 | 119 | 110 (92.4%) | 9 (7.56%) | 2.40 | 2.00 | 0.0168* |
| Male partner thought the overall process was simple and convenient | 359 | 312 (89.4%) | 38 (10.6%) | 2.18 | 2.00 | 120 | 112 (93.3%) | 8 (6.67%) | 2.37 | 2.00 | 0.00817** |
| Male partner was aware carrier screening was recommended for him | 363 | 318 (87.6%) | 45 (12.4%) | 2.21 | 2.00 | 120 | 99 (82.5%) | 21 (17.5%) | 2.03 | 2.00 | 0.00961** |
| Male partner had the chance to have his questions answered at the appointment | 361 | 313 (86.7%) | 48 (13.3%) | 2.18 | 2.00 | 120 | 108 (90.0%) | 12 (10.0%) | 2.23 | 2.00 | 0.510 |
| Appointment times were convenient | 359 | 299 (83.3%) | 60 (16.7%) | 2.09 | 2.00 | 120 | 109 (90.8%) | 11 (9.17%) | 2.21 | 2.00 | 0.145 |
| Clear directions were provided by healthcare providers for male partner to have testing | 357 | 290 (81.2%) | 67 (18.8%) | 2.08 | 2.00 | 120 | 88 (73.3%) | 32 (26.7%) | 1.91 | 2.00 | 0.0180* |
| Male partner thought the cost was reasonable | 357 | 232 (65.0%) | 125 (35.0%) | 1.73 | 2.00 | 120 | 84 (70.0%) | 36 (30.0%) | 1.77 | 2.00 | 0.699 |
A, agree; D, disagree; M, mean; Mdn, median
*p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001