ArticleUpsala journal of medical sciences2016
Swedish parents' interest in preconception genetic carrier screening.
Article in Upsala journal of medical sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient and health care practitioner experiences and perspectives on expanded carrier screening: A scoping review.Genetics in medicine open · 2026Review
- Preconception Care and Genetic Screening: A Global Review and Strategic Perspectives for Implementation in Bulgaria.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The effect of media aids in genetic carrier screening education among patients with infertility.F&S reports · 2025Article
- Review
- Societal implications of expanded universal carrier screening: a scoping review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023Article
- Direct to consumer genetic testing in Denmark-public knowledge, use, and attitudes.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2021Article
- Preconception expanded carrier screening: Impact of information presented by text or video on genetic knowledge and attitudes.Journal of genetic counseling · 2021Article
- Current attitudes and preconceptions towards expanded carrier screening in the Eastern Chinese reproductive-aged population.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2021Article
- Expanded universal carrier screening and its implementation within a publicly funded healthcare service.Journal of community genetics · 2020Review
- Values and value conflicts in implementation and use of preconception expanded carrier screening - an expert interview study.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- The evolving landscape of expanded carrier screening: challenges and opportunities.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019Review
- Expanded genetic carrier screening in clinical practice: a current survey of patient impressions and attitudes.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2019Article
- Pregnant Women's Perspectives on Expanded Carrier Screening.Journal of genetic counseling · 2018Article
- Why Patients Decline Genomic Sequencing Studies: Experiences from the CSER Consortium.Journal of genetic counseling · 2018Article
- Do pregnant women want to know the sex of the expected child at routine ultrasound and are they interested in sex selection?Upsala journal of medical sciences · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGenetic technologies advance rapidly. It is possible to undergo genetic carrier screening before pregnancy to examine genetic risks to future offspring. We aimed to investigate parents' interest and motives towards preconception genetic carrier screening (PCS) as well as factors associated with interest in PCS. MATERIAL AND
methodsOur study sample consists of 777 parent couples within the longitudinal Swedish Pregnancy Planning study. Women responded to questionnaires at three occasions: in early pregnancy, late pregnancy, and one year after childbirth. Male partners responded to one questionnaire one year after childbirth.
resultsOne-third of the parents were positive (30% versus 34% of women and men, respectively), less than a third were negative (26% versus 28%), and 45% versus 38% were uncertain about whether to consider PCS before a future pregnancy. No differences in PCS interest were found between women and men (P = 0.091), but a higher proportion of women were concerned about negative consequences (53% versus 46%, P < 0.003) and were 'opposed to such a way of child selection' (31.8% versus 25.2%, P = 0.002). Factors associated with PCS interest were experiences of prenatal diagnostics and positive attitudes towards finding out or choosing sex of one's child (women), and prenatal diagnostics, self-rated poor health, and pregnancy planning (men).
conclusionBoth women and men had relatively high uncertainty towards PCS, but women were more concerned about negative consequences. The future extent of the clinical utility of PCS is currently unknown, but parents' interests and doubts are important aspects to consider.
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.