ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2015
Knowledge and future preference of Chinese women in a major public hospital in Hong Kong after undergoing non-invasive prenatal testing for positive aneuploidy screening: a questionnaire survey.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring measurement tools used to assess knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of pregnant women toward prenatal screening: A systematic review.Women's health (London, England)Pooled it
- Effects of an animated educational video on knowledge of cell-free DNA screening among Thai pregnant women: a randomized control trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Trial
- Understanding knowledge, perception, and willingness of non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy: a survey among Chinese high-risk pregnant women.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- The Knowledge, Attitude, Practices, and Satisfaction of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing among Chinese Pregnant Women under Different Payment Schemes: A Comparative Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Factors associated with common and atypical chromosome abnormalities after positive combined first-trimester screening in Chinese women: a retrospective cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2019Article
- Service provision of non-invasive prenatal testing for Down syndrome in public and private healthcare sectors: a qualitative study with obstetric providers.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- Obstetric professionals' perceptions of non-invasive prenatal testing for Down syndrome: clinical usefulness compared with existing tests and ethical implications.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2017Article
- Evaluation of preferences of women and healthcare professionals in Singapore for implementation of noninvasive prenatal testing for Down syndrome.Singapore medical journal · 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the non-invasive nature of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), there is still a need for a separate informed consent process before testing. The objectives of this study are to assess (a) knowledge and preferences of Chinese women in a major public hospital in Hong Kong who underwent NIPT, and (b) whether their knowledge and preferences differ depending on womens' characteristics and sources of information.
methodsSetting: Prenatal diagnosis and counselling clinic. Between February 2012 and September 2013, a questionnaire survey was distributed to all women who underwent NIPT after positive aneuploidy screening. As a pilot study, ten knowledge questions were designed based on the rapid response statement on Prenatal Detection of Down Syndrome using Massively Parallel Sequencing from the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis in 2011. The source of women's knowledge and their preferences were also evaluated. While conventional screening was publicly funded, NIPT was not. Differences between subgroups were compared using chi square tests and logistic regression analysis.
resultsOf 152 women who underwent NIPT, 135 (88.8%) completed their questionnaires. More than 90% of women recognised the possibility of false positive and false negative results. Slightly more than 70% of women knew the inferior sensitivity of NIPT compared to an invasive test, and the possibility of an uninformative test result, but were not aware of the complicated aspects of NIPT. Pregnant women with an advanced level of education or those who underwent NIPT before 15 weeks provided answers that was more accurate by around 10-20% in two to three knowledge questions than those without. These associations were confirmed by multivariate logistic regression analysis. The women received information on NIPT largely from their private doctors (47.4%) and web (41.5%). In their future pregnancies, more women would opt for NIPT (a self-financed item) after positive screening ('free' in a public hospital) (57.8%) than as a primary screening (30.4%).
conclusionsIt is feasible to use a questionnaire based on the ISPD statement on NIPT to assess women's knowledge of the test. The Chinese women who underwent NIPT recognised the limitations, but did not understand the complicated aspects. More information should be provided by health care professionals in order to facilitate an informed choice by patients. More women preferred NIPT as a contingent test than as a primary screening probably because of its high cost.
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.