Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28320334›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2017

Use of a patient decision aid for prenatal screening for Down syndrome: what do pregnant women say?

Maria Esther Leiva Portocarrero, Anik M C Giguère, Johanie Lépine, Mirjam M Garvelink, Hubert Robitaille, Agathe Delanoë, Isabelle Lévesque, Brenda J Wilson, François Rousseau, France Légaré

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04162288 (RCT Protocol for Evaluating an Online Training Program on Shared Decision-making About Screening for Down Syndrome), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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.

NCT04162288 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

RCT Protocol for Evaluating an Online Training Program on Shared Decision-making About Screening for Down Syndrome

TypeinterventionalSponsorCHU de Quebec-Universite LavalRan2019 to 2020Enrolled36ConditionsShared Decision MakingArmsOnline Training - Shared Decision Making in Prenatal Screening, Online Training - Online Training on Prenatal Screening
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Women's Concerns and Experiences of Fetal Anomaly Screening Process: A Qualitative Study.International journal of community based nursing and midwifery · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Decision Aids: The Role of the Patient in Perioperative Safety.International anesthesiology clinics · 2019
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Maria Esther Leiva PortocarreroPopulation Health and Practice-Changing Research Group, CHU de Québec Research Centre, Quebec, Canada.
Anik M C GiguèreCentre d'Excellence sur le Vieillissement de Québec, CHU de Québec Research Centre, Quebec, Canada.
Johanie LépinePopulation Health and Practice-Changing Research Group, CHU de Québec Research Centre, Quebec, Canada.
Mirjam M GarvelinkPopulation Health and Practice-Changing Research Group, CHU de Québec Research Centre, Quebec, Canada.
Hubert RobitaillePopulation Health and Practice-Changing Research Group, CHU de Québec Research Centre, Quebec, Canada.
Agathe DelanoëPopulation Health and Practice-Changing Research Group, CHU de Québec Research Centre, Quebec, Canada.
Isabelle LévesqueCHU de Québec, Hôpital St-François d'Assise, and Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec, Canada.
Brenda J WilsonDepartment of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
François RousseauDepartment of Molecular Biology, Medical Biochemistry and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec, Canada.
France LégaréPopulation Health and Practice-Changing Research Group, CHU de Québec Research Centre, Quebec, Canada. France.Legare@mfa.ulaval.ca.
Quebec Research and Development CentreUniversité Laval · CAHôpital Saint-François d'Assise · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient decision aids (PtDAs) help people make difficult, values-sensitive decisions. Prenatal screening for assessing the risk of genetic conditions in the fetus is one such decision and patient decision aids are rarely used in this clinical context. We sought to identify factors influencing pregnant women's use of a patient decision aid for deciding about prenatal screening for Down syndrome (DS).

methodsThis qualitative study was embedded in a sequential mixed-methods research program whose main aim is to implement shared decision-making (SDM) in the context of prenatal screening for DS in the province of Quebec, Canada. We planned to recruit a purposive sample of 45 pregnant women with low-risk pregnancy consulting for prenatal care at three clinical sites. Participating women watched a video depicting a prenatal care follow-up during which a pregnant woman, her partner and a health professional used a PtDA to decide about prenatal screening for DS. The women were then interviewed about factors that would influence the use of this PtDA using questions based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). We performed content analysis of transcribed verbatim interviews.

resultsOut of 216 eligible women, 100 agreed to participate (46% response rate) and 46 were interviewed. Regarding the type of health professional responsible for their prenatal care, 19 participants (41%) reported having made a decision about prenatal screening for DS with an obstetrician-gynecologist, 13 (28%) with a midwife, 12 (26%) with a family physician, and two (4%) decided on their own. We identified 54 factors that were mapped onto nine of the 12 TDF domains. The three most frequently-mentioned were: opinion of the pregnant woman's partner (n = 33, 72%), presentation of the PtDA by health professional and a discussion (n = 27, 72%), and not having encountered a PtDA (n = 26, 57%).

conclusionThis study allowed us to identify factors influencing pregnant women's use of a PtDA for prenatal screening for DS. Use of a PtDA by health professionals and patients is one step in providing the needed decision support and our study results will allow us to design an effective implementation strategy for PtDAs for prenatal screening for DS.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDecision Support TechniquesAdultDown SyndromeFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansPregnancyPregnant PeoplePrenatal DiagnosisQualitative ResearchQuebecDecision aidDown syndromeImplementationKnowledge translationPrenatal testingShared decision makingTheoretical domains frameworkTrisomy 21

Identifiers

PMID28320334
PMCPMC5359918
OpenAlexW2601489336

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.