Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16611368›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2006

Evaluation of a decision aid for prenatal testing of fetal abnormalities: a cluster randomised trial [ISRCTN22532458].

Cate Nagle, Sharon Lewis, Bettina Meiser, Sylvia Metcalfe, John B Carlin, Robin Bell, Jane Gunn, Jane Halliday

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Exploring informed choice in the context of prenatal testing: findings from a qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2008
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Cate NagleMurdoch Childrens Research Institute, Flemington Road, Parkville, Victoria, 3052, Australia. cate.nagle@mcri.edu.au
Sharon Lewis
Bettina Meiser
Sylvia Metcalfe
John B Carlin
Robin Bell
Jane Gunn
Jane Halliday

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBy providing information on the relative merits and potential harms of the options available and a framework to clarify preferences, decision aids can improve knowledge and realistic expectations and decrease decisional conflict in individuals facing decisions between alternative forms of action. Decision-making about prenatal testing for fetal abnormalities is often confusing and difficult for women and the effectiveness of decision aids in this field has not been established. This study aims to test whether a decision aid for prenatal testing of fetal abnormalities, when compared to a pamphlet, improves women's informed decision-making and decreases decisional conflict. METHODS/

designA cluster designed randomised controlled trial is being conducted in Victoria, Australia. Fifty General Practitioners (GPs) have been randomised to one of two arms: providing women with either a decision aid or a pamphlet. The two primary outcomes will be measured by comparing the difference in percentages of women identified as making an informed choice and the difference in mean decisional conflict scores between the two groups. Data will be collected from women using questionnaires at 14 weeks and 24 weeks gestation. The sample size of 159 women in both arms of the trial has been calculated to detect a difference of 18% (50 to 68%) in informed choice between the two groups. The required numbers have been adjusted to accommodate the cluster design, miscarriage and participant lost--to--follow up. Baseline characteristics of women will be summarised for both arms of the trial. Similarly, characteristics of GPs will be compared between arms. Differences in the primary outcomes will be analysed using 'intention-to-treat' principles. Appropriate regression techniques will adjust for the effects of clustering and include covariates to adjust for the stratifying variable and major potential confounding factors. DISCUSSION: The findings from this trial will make a significant contribution to improving women's experience of prenatal testing and will have application to a variety of maternity care settings. The evaluation of a tailored decision aid will also have implications for pregnancy care providers by identifying whether or not such a resource will support their role in providing prenatal testing information.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesPatient Acceptance of Health CarePrenatal DiagnosisCluster AnalysisDecision MakingFamily PracticeFemaleFetal DiseasesFetusHumansInformed ConsentPamphletsPatient SelectionPregnancyPrimary Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID16611368
PMCPMC1479329

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.