Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26508572›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2016

Development and validation of a measure of informed choice for women undergoing non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy.

Celine Lewis, Melissa Hill, Heather Skirton, Lyn S Chitty

Open access · hybridAbstract readValidation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
15.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Celine LewisGenetics and Genomic Medicine, UCL Institute of Child Health and Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Melissa HillGenetics and Genomic Medicine, UCL Institute of Child Health and Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Heather SkirtonFaculty of Health and Human Sciences, Plymouth University, Plymouth, UK.
Lyn S ChittyGenetics and Genomic Medicine, UCL Institute of Child Health and Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Plymouth · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0707-10107
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) using cell-free DNA for aneuploidy is a highly accurate screening test; however, concerns exist around the potential for routinisation of testing. The multidimensional measure of informed choice (MMIC) is a quantitative instrument developed to assess informed choice for Down syndrome screening (DSS). We have validated a modified MMIC for NIPT and measured informed choice among women offered NIPT in a public health service. The measure was distributed to women recruited across eight maternity units in the United Kingdom who had accepted DSS. Construct validity was assessed by simultaneously conducting qualitative interviews. Five hundred and eighty-five questionnaires were completed and 45 interviews conducted after blood-draw (or equivalent for those that declined NIPT). The measure demonstrated good internal consistency and internal validity. Results indicate the vast majority of women (89%) made an informed choice; 95% were judged to have good knowledge, 88% had a positive attitude and 92% had deliberated. Of the 11% judged to have made an uninformed choice, 55% had not deliberated, 41% had insufficient knowledge, and 19% had a negative attitude. Ethnicity (OR=2.78, P=0.003) and accepting NIPT (OR=16.05, P=0.021) were found to be significant predictors of informed choice. The high rate of informed choice is likely to reflect the importance placed on the provision of pre-test counselling in this study. It will be vital to ensure that this is maintained once NIPT is offered in routine clinical practice.

Indexed as

Decision MakingHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultDown SyndromeFemaleHumansInformed ConsentPrenatal DiagnosisSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID26508572
PMCPMC4867447
OpenAlexW1842038060

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.