ArticleMaternal and child health journal2014
Evaluation of a novel electronic genetic screening and clinical decision support tool in prenatal clinical settings.
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genetically guided precision medicine clinical decision support tools: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Pooled it
- What maximizes the effectiveness and implementation of technology-based interventions to support healthcare professional practice? A systematic literature review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2018Pooled it
- 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 · 2015Pooled it
- Barriers and Facilitators to the Use of Clinical Decision Support Systems in Primary Care: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review.Annals of family medicinePooled it
- Revolutionising Cardio-Oncology Care with Precision Genomics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Towards an explainable clinical decision support system for large-for-gestational-age births.PloS one · 2023Article
- Identification and Impact Analysis of Family History of Psychiatric Disorder in Mood Disorder Patients With Pretrained Language Model.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- Physicians' strategies for using family history data: having the data is not the same as using the data.JAMIA open · 2020Article
- Primary care physician experiences utilizing a family health history tool with electronic health record-integrated clinical decision support: an implementation process assessment.Journal of community genetics · 2020Article
- An approach to improve the care of mid-life women through the implementation of a Women's Health Assessment Tool/Clinical Decision Support toolkit.Women's health (London, England) · 2016Article
- Pre- and post-test genetic counseling for chromosomal and Mendelian disorders.Seminars in perinatology · 2016Review
- Comparing genetic counselor's and patient's perceptions of needs in prenatal chromosomal microarray testing.Prenatal diagnosis · 2015Article
- Formative evaluation of clinician experience with integrating family history-based clinical decision support into clinical practice.Journal of personalized medicine · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.