Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24101435›Full record

ArticleMaternal and child health journal2014

Evaluation of a novel electronic genetic screening and clinical decision support tool in prenatal clinical settings.

Emily A Edelman, Bruce K Lin, Teresa Doksum, Brian Drohan, Vaughn Edelson, Siobhan M Dolan, Kevin Hughes, James O'Leary, Lisa Vasquez, Sara Copeland and 7 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.4field-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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Genetically guided precision medicine clinical decision support tools: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Primary-care providers' perceived barriers to integration of genetics services: a systematic review of the literature.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2015
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Revolutionising Cardio-Oncology Care with Precision Genomics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  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

17 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Emily A EdelmanNational Coalition for Health Professional Education in Genetics, 2360 W Joppa Road; Suite 320, Lutherville, MD, 21093, USA, eedelman@nchpeg.org.
Bruce K Lin
Teresa Doksum
Brian Drohan
Vaughn Edelson
Siobhan M Dolan
Kevin Hughes
James O'Leary
Lisa Vasquez
Sara Copeland
Shelley L Galvin
Nicole DeGroat
Setul Pardanani
W Gregory Feero
Claire Adams
Renee Jones
Joan Scott
Montefiore Medical Center · USGenetic Alliance · USHealth Resources and Services Administration · USMaine-Dartmouth Family Medicine Residency · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USAsian Health Coalition · USMarch of Dimes · USMountain Area Health Education Center · US

Funding

PHS HHS U33MC12786
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

"The Pregnancy and Health Profile" (PHP) is a free prenatal genetic screening and clinical decision support (CDS) software tool for prenatal providers. PHP collects family health history (FHH) during intake and provides point-of-care risk assessment for providers and education for patients. This pilot study evaluated patient and provider responses to PHP and effects of using PHP in practice. PHP was implemented in four clinics. Surveys assessed provider confidence and knowledge and patient and provider satisfaction with PHP. Data on the implementation process were obtained through semi-structured interviews with administrators. Quantitative survey data were analyzed using Chi square test, Fisher's exact test, paired t tests, and multivariate logistic regression. Open-ended survey questions and interviews were analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis. Of the 83% (513/618) of patients that provided feedback, 97% felt PHP was easy to use and 98% easy to understand. Thirty percent (21/71) of participating physicians completed both pre- and post-implementation feedback surveys [13 obstetricians (OBs) and 8 family medicine physicians (FPs)]. Confidence in managing genetic risks significantly improved for OBs on 2/6 measures (p values ≤0.001) but not for FPs. Physician knowledge did not significantly change. Providers reported value in added patient engagement and reported mixed feedback about the CDS report. We identified key steps, resources, and staff support required to implement PHP in a clinical setting. To our knowledge, this study is the first to report on the integration of patient-completed, electronically captured and CDS-enabled FHH software into primary prenatal practice. PHP is acceptable to patients and providers. Key to successful implementation in the future will be customization options and interoperability with electronic health records.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesAdolescentAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelDemographyFemaleGenetic TestingHumansInterviews as TopicMedical History TakingMiddle AgedPractice Patterns, Physicians'PregnancyPrenatal CarePrimary Health CareRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID24101435
OpenAlexW1986162441

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.