Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28355226›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Considering medical risk information and communicating values: A mixed-method study of women's choice in prenatal testing.

An Chen, Henni Tenhunen, Paulus Torkki, Seppo Heinonen, Paul Lillrank, Vedran Stefanovic

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

6 authors.

An ChenAalto University, Institute of Healthcare Engineering, Management and Architecture (HEMA), Espoo, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9419-8254
Henni TenhunenAalto University, Institute of Healthcare Engineering, Management and Architecture (HEMA), Espoo, Finland.
Paulus TorkkiAalto University, Institute of Healthcare Engineering, Management and Architecture (HEMA), Espoo, Finland.
Seppo HeinonenFetomaternal Medical Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Paul LillrankAalto University, Institute of Healthcare Engineering, Management and Architecture (HEMA), Espoo, Finland.
Vedran StefanovicFetomaternal Medical Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionNowadays, an important decision for pregnant women is whether to undergo prenatal testing for aneuploidies and which tests to uptake. We investigate the factors influencing women's choices between non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and invasive prenatal tests in pregnancies with elevated a priori risk of fetal aneuploidies. METHODOLOGY: This is a mixed-method study. We used medical data (1st Jan 2015-31st Dec 2015) about women participating in further testing at Fetomaternal Medical Center at Helsinki University Hospital and employed Chi-square tests and ANOVA to compare the groups of women choosing different methods. Multinomial logistic regressions revealed the significant clinical factors influencing women's choice. We explored the underlying values, beliefs, attitudes and other psychosocial factors that affect women's choice by interviewing women with the Theory of Planned Behavior framework. The semi-structured interview data were processed by thematic analysis.

resultsStatistical data indicated that gestational age and counseling day were strong factors influencing women's choice. Interview data revealed that women's values and moral principles on pregnancy and childbirth chiefly determined the choices. Behavioral beliefs (e.g. safety and accuracy) and perceived choice control (e.g. easiness, rapidness and convenience) were also important and the major trade-offs happened between these constructs. DISCUSSION: Values are the determinants of women's choice. Service availability and convenience are strong factors. Medical risk status in this choice context is not highly influential. Choice aids can be developed by helping women to identify their leading values in prenatal testing and by providing lists of value-matching test options and attributes.

Indexed as

AdultAmniocentesisAneuploidyChoice BehaviorFemaleGenetic TestingGestational AgeHumansLogistic ModelsPatient PreferencePregnancyPregnant PeoplePrenatal DiagnosisRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID28355226
PMCPMC5371284

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.