ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2014
Demographic and experiential correlates of public attitudes towards cell-free fetal DNA screening.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Approaches to engaging faith communities in public health efforts regarding vaccination, genetics, and colorectal cancer: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Genetic counseling and testing for Asian Americans: a systematic review.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021Pooled it
- Are People From Black Communities Proportionately Represented in UK and US Studies Examining Views on Screening and Diagnostic Genetic Testing in Pregnancy? A Scoping Review.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025Article
- Attitudes toward genomic health care among Christian dones in the United States.Psychology of religion and spirituality · 2025Article
- Religious factors predict support for genomic medicine more strongly than politics, education, or trust: A survey of 4,939 adults in the United States.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- Article
- What do people think about genetics? A systematic review.Journal of community genetics · 2019Review
- How should costs and cost-effectiveness be considered in prenatal genetic testing?Seminars in perinatology · 2018Review
- Has noninvasive prenatal testing impacted termination of pregnancy and live birth rates of infants with Down syndrome?Prenatal diagnosis · 2017Review
- Expanding Use of cfDNA Screening in Pregnancy: Current and Emerging Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues.Current genetic medicine reports · 2017Article
- "The Top Priority Is a Healthy Baby": Narratives of Health, Disability, and Abortion in Online Pregnancy Forum Discussions in the US and China.Journal of genetic counseling · 2017Article
- Spanish- and English-Speaking Pregnant Women's Views on cfDNA and Other Prenatal Screening: Practical and Ethical Reflections.Journal of genetic counseling · 2016Article
- "This lifetime commitment": Public conceptions of disability and noninvasive prenatal genetic screening.American journal of medical genetics. Part A · 2016Article
- Non-invasive prenatal testing: a review of international implementation and challenges.International journal of women's health · 2015Review
- Evaluation of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for aneuploidy in an NHS setting: a reliable accurate prenatal non-invasive diagnosis (RAPID) protocol.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2014Observational
- "Don't Want No Risk and Don't Want No Problems": Public Understandings of the Risks and Benefits of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing in the United States.AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This study seeks to inform clinical application of cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) screening as a novel method for prenatal trisomy detection by investigating public attitudes towards this technology and demographic and experiential characteristics related to these attitudes. Two versions of a 25-item survey assessing interest in cffDNA and existing first-trimester combined screening for either trisomy 13 and 18 or trisomy 21 were distributed among 3,164 members of the United States public. Logistic regression was performed to determine variables predictive of interest in screening options. Approximately 47% of respondents expressed an interest in cffDNA screening for trisomy 13, 18, and 21, with a majority interested in cffDNA screening as a stand-alone technique. A significantly greater percent would consider termination of pregnancy following a diagnosis of trisomy 13 or 18 (52%) over one of trisomy 21 (44%). Willingness to consider abortion of an affected pregnancy was the strongest correlate to interest in both cffDNA and first-trimester combined screening, although markedly more respondents expressed an interest in some form of screening (69% and 71%, respectively) than would consider termination. Greater educational attainment, higher income, and insurance coverage predicted interest in cffDNA screening; stronger religious identification also corresponded to decreased interest. Prior experience with disability and genetic testing was associated with increased interest in cffDNA screening. Several of these factors, in addition to advanced age and Asian race, were, in turn, predictive of respondents' increased willingness to consider post-diagnosis termination of pregnancy. In conclusion, divergent attitudes towards cffDNA screening--and prenatal options more generally--appear correlated with individual socioeconomic and religious backgrounds and experiences with disability and genetic testing. Clinical implementation and counseling for novel prenatal technologies should take these diverse stakeholder values into consideration.
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.