ArticleJournal of community genetics2013
The scope of prenatal diagnosis for women at increased risk for aneuploidies: views and preferences of professionals and potential users.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementing non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in the Netherlands: An interview study exploring opinions about and experiences with societal pressure, reimbursement, and an expanding scope.Journal of genetic counseling · 2020Article
- Segmental Duplications as a Complement Strategy to Short Tandem Repeats in the Prenatal Diagnosis of Down Syndrome.Iranian journal of medical sciences · 2019Article
- Offering a choice between NIPT and invasive PND in prenatal genetic counseling: the impact of clinician characteristics on patients' test uptake.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2019Article
- Choosing between Higher and Lower Resolution Microarrays: do Pregnant Women Have Sufficient Knowledge to Make Informed Choices Consistent with their Attitude?Journal of genetic counseling · 2018Article
- What do people want to know about NIPT? Content analysis of questions emailed to national NIPT information websites.Prenatal diagnosis · 2017Article
- Considering medical risk information and communicating values: A mixed-method study of women's choice in prenatal testing.PloS one · 2017Article
- The Psychological Impact of Prenatal Diagnosis and Disclosure of Susceptibility Loci: First Impressions of Parents' Experiences.Journal of genetic counseling · 2016Article
- The Psychological Challenges of Replacing Conventional Karyotyping with Genomic SNP Array Analysis in Prenatal Testing.Journal of clinical medicine · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The increasing number of prenatal diagnostic tests in prenatal screening strategies, raises the question what tests to offer and why. This qualitative study investigated the views and preferences of professionals and potential users regarding four diagnostic test options for women at increased risk for common aneuploidies. Seven focus group sessions were conducted in The Netherlands between October 2009 and June 2010, with various categories of participants (n = 55): professionals engaged in prenatal testing and potential users of this testing (meaning pregnant women and parents of young children). Participants were invited to mention all pros and cons and their preferences regarding four hypothetical diagnostic test options, presented on vignettes: a standard offer of rapid aneuploidy detection, karyotyping or array comparative genomic hybridization, representing a narrow, traditional and broad test, respectively, and the option of individualised choice. Then, a semi-structured group interview was conducted. The data were analysed by the constant comparative method. Participants identified similar test-specific pros and cons but showed different preferences. Users' opinion on what test to offer as a general policy differed from what they would choose themselves. All participants agreed that in theory, users should be enabled to make an informed choice about what test to apply, but they disagreed about the feasibility of this ideal. Standard narrow testing was favoured for its limiting effects on emotional and organisational burdens; individualised choice was preferred for assuring women's decisive influence. The varying opinions reflect different views on what autonomy in the prenatal screening context means, suggest that a single standard test offer is inadequate and that differentiation will be needed.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.