ArticleSingapore medical journal2017
Evaluation of preferences of women and healthcare professionals in Singapore for implementation of noninvasive prenatal testing for Down syndrome.
Article in Singapore medical journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 5 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, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prenatal Screening for Common Aneuploidy in Southeast Asian Countries: A Systematic Review of Challenges and Opportunities.Prenatal diagnosis · 2026Pooled it
- Healthcare professionals' perspectives on and experiences with non-invasive prenatal testing: a systematic review.Human genetics · 2025Pooled it
- Preferences for aspects of antenatal and newborn screening: a systematic review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2019Pooled it
- Facilitating informed choice about non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis of women's experiences.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2019Pooled it
- Application of discrete choice experiments to enhance stakeholder engagement as a strategy for advancing implementation: a systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2017Pooled it
- Does an educational video for aneuploidy screening improve informed choice among pregnant women? A randomised controlled trial.Prenatal diagnosis · 2023Trial
- Preferences for Prenatal Care Among Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiment Studies.International journal of women's health · 2026Review
- Perception of non-layperson advisory committee members on the application of a discrete choice experiment instrument to patients and advisory committee members: a qualitative study.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Article
- Article
- Pregnant women's and policymakers' preferences for the expansion of noninvasive prenatal screening: A discrete choice experiment approach study.Health science reports · 2023Article
- Article
- Review
- How do women want to receive information about non-invasive prenatal testing? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment.Prenatal diagnosis · 2022Article
- A Hierarchical Bayes Approach to Modeling Heterogeneity in Discrete Choice Experiments: An Application to Public Preferences for Prenatal Screening.The patient · 2020Article
- Talking Points: Women's Information Needs for Informed Decision-Making About Noninvasive Prenatal Testing for Down Syndrome.Journal of genetic counseling · 2018Article
- Progress in obstetrics and gynaecology - evidence-based practices and practice-based evidence reviews.Singapore medical journal · 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionInvasive prenatal diagnosis (IPD) has long been used to prenatally diagnose Down syndrome (DS), but it is associated with a small risk of miscarriage. Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is a highly sensitive screening test using cell-free DNA in maternal blood for detection of DS without the risk of miscarriage, but it confers a small risk of false-positive and false-negative results. The implementation of these procedures into clinical practice requires an understanding of stakeholder preferences.
methodsA total of 69 health professionals (HPs) and 301 women took part in a discrete choice experiment (DCE) in which preferences for four prenatal test attributes - accuracy, time of results, risk of miscarriage and amount of information provided - were assessed. Conditional logit regression was used to analyse the data. Data on demographics and ranked preferences for test attributes was collected, and a direct choice question regarding NIPT, IPD or neither test was posed to participants.
resultsThe women showed a preference for test safety, whereas HPs prioritised test accuracy above all other attributes. When offered a direct choice of NIPT, IPD or neither test, women aged 35 years and older, those with previous miscarriage or who knew a child with DS were more likely to choose NIPT. Chinese women preferred NIPT, whereas Indian women preferred IPD.
conclusionOur data highlights the need for patient-specific counselling, taking into account previous experiences and cultural factors. Since women and HPs prioritise different test attributes, it is essential that HPs recognise these differences in order to provide non-biased counselling.
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.