ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2018
Implementing Group Prenatal Counseling for Expanded Noninvasive Screening Options.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled 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
- Trial
- Rethinking the Burden of Traditional Informed Consent Prior to Prenatal Genetic Screening.The Hastings Center report · 2025Article
- Promoting Shared Decision Making About Birth After Cesarean in Haitian Women.The Journal of perinatal education · 2022Article
- Educational and Ethical Considerations for Genetic Test Implementation Within Health Care Systems.Network and systems medicine · 2020Review
- Access to Genetic Counselors in the Southern United States.Journal of personalized medicine · 2019Article
- Decision-making factors in prenatal testing: A systematic review.Health psychology openReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently, practices have begun integrating cell-free DNA-based noninvasive prenatal screening as a screening option for a variety of genetic conditions. According to the National Society of Genetic Counselors, the integration of cfDNA screening into clinical prenatal practice may "significantly shift the paradigm of prenatal testing and screening for all women." The purpose of this study was to determine whether group information sessions can feasibly serve as an alternative to extended one-on-one genetic counseling for the increasing number of women making decisions about prenatal testing and screening. This study assessed the effect of group genetic information sessions coupled with abbreviated counseling on pregnant women's knowledge about and attitudes toward prenatal testing and screening.
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.