Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27189020›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2016

The effect of a decision aid on informed decision-making in the era of non-invasive prenatal testing: a randomised controlled trial.

Lean Beulen, Michelle van den Berg, Brigitte Hw Faas, Ilse Feenstra, Michiel Hageman, John Mg van Vugt, Mireille N Bekker

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 29 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Time for a New Norm: Experiences of 'Being Informed' and 'Having Choice' for Prenatal Screening for Chromosomal Conditions: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    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

7 authors.

Lean BeulenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Michelle van den BergDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Brigitte Hw FaasDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Ilse FeenstraDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Michiel HagemanPATIENT+ Foundation, The Hague, The Netherlands.
John Mg van VugtDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Mireille N BekkerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Early in pregnancy women and their partners face the complex decision on whether or not to participate in prenatal testing for fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Several studies show that the majority of pregnant women currently do not make informed decisions regarding prenatal testing. As the range of prenatal tests is expanding due to the development of new techniques such as non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), autonomous reproductive decision-making is increasingly challenging. In this study, a randomised controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the effect of a web-based multimedia decision aid on decision-making regarding prenatal testing. The decision aid provided both written and audiovisual information on prenatal tests currently available, that is, prenatal screening by first-trimester combined testing, NIPT and invasive diagnostic testing through chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis. Furthermore, it contained values clarification exercises encouraging pregnant women to reflect on the potential harms and benefits of having prenatal tests performed. The use of the decision aid improved informed decision-making regarding prenatal testing. Of pregnant women allocated to the intervention group (n=130) 82.3% made an informed choice compared with 66.4% of women in the control group (n=131), P=0.004. As the vast majority of pregnant women made decisions consistent with their attitudes towards having prenatal testing performed, this improvement in informed decision-making could be attributed mainly to an increase in decision-relevant knowledge. This study shows that the implementation of a web-based multimedia decision aid directly facilitates the ultimate goal of prenatal testing for fetal chromosomal abnormalities, which is enabling informed autonomous reproductive choice.

Indexed as

Informed ConsentPatient Education as TopicAdultDecision MakingFemaleHumansInternetPregnancyPrenatal Diagnosis

Identifiers

PMID27189020
PMCPMC5027684

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.