Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20060677›Full record

SynthesisPatient education and counseling2010

Conceptualizing couples' decision making in PGD: emerging cognitive, emotional, and moral dimensions.

Patricia E Hershberger, Penny F Pierce

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Patient education and counseling, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Addressing ethical issues related to prenatal diagnostic procedures.Maternal health, neonatology and perinatology · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Patricia E HershbergerUniversity of Illinois at Chicago, College of Nursing and College of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60612, USA. phersh@uic.edu
Penny F Pierce
University of Illinois Chicago · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · US

Funding

UIC Program for Interdisciplinary Careers in Women's Health ResearchK12HD055892 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI GELLER, STACIE E. · 2007 to 2016
$4.9M
NEUROSCIENCE/NEUROBEHAVIOR NURSING RESEARCH TRAININGT32NR007074 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI METZGER, BONNIE L · 1992 to 2006
$1.6M
PGD: Couples Decision Making at the Genetic and Reproductive InterfaceR03NR010351 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI HERSHBERGER, PATRICIA · 2008 to 2009
$157k
NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD055892NINR NIH HHS R03 NR010351NINR NIH HHS T32 NR007074NINR NIH HHS T32 NR07074
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo illuminate and synthesize what is known about the underlying decision making processes surrounding couples' preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) use or disuse and to formulate an initial conceptual framework that can guide future research and practice.

methodsThis systematic review targeted empirical studies published in English from 1990 to 2008 that examined the decision making process of couples or individual partners that had used, were eligible for, or had contemplated PGD. Sixteen studies met the eligibility requirements. To provide a more comprehensive review, empirical studies that examined healthcare professionals' perceptions of couples' decision making surrounding PGD use and key publications from a variety of disciplines supplemented the analysis.

resultsThe conceptual framework formulated from the review demonstrates that couples' PGD decision making is composed of three iterative and dynamic dimensions: cognitive appraisals, emotional responses, and moral judgments.

conclusionCouples think critically about uncertain and probabilistic information, grapple with conflicting emotions, and incorporate moral perspectives into their decision making about whether or not to use PGD. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The quality of care and decisional support for couples who are contemplating PGD use can be improved by incorporating focused questions and discussion from each of the dimensions into counseling sessions.

Indexed as

Decision MakingEmotionsMoralsPreimplantation DiagnosisDecision TheoryFemaleHumansPregnancyReproductive Techniques, AssistedSpouses

Identifiers

PMID20060677
PMCPMC2888878
OpenAlexW2081456708

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.