ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2018
Interpretations of autonomous decision-making in antenatal genetic screening among women in China, Hong Kong and Pakistan.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Experiences of perinatal genetic screening for people from migrant and refugee backgrounds: a scoping review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Genetic testing perspectives in Pakistani population: a survey on knowledge, attitudes, awareness, and concerns.Journal of community genetics · 2024Article
- A scoping review of Q-methodology in healthcare research.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
- Decision making on antenatal screening results: A comparative Q-method study of women from two Chinese cities.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- Autonomous decision-making for antenatal screening in Pakistan: views held by women, men and health professionals in a low-middle income country.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2019Article
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 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The concept of informed choice for antenatal screening consists of Western ideologies, encapsulating individualistic approaches, and may be valued differently by people from countries with more collectivist cultures. This study aimed to explore perceptions of informed choice in antenatal screening in women from China, Hong Kong and Pakistan. A Q-methodology study was conducted during June 2016 to February 2017, in China (Shanghai and Duyun), Hong Kong and Pakistan (Lahore). A total of 299 women rank ordered 41 statements. Following by-person factor analysis, five distinct viewpoints were identified: choice as a maternal responsibility entrusted to doctors; choice as a shared decision led by the mother; choice as a shared decision led by the partner; choice as a responsibility delegated to the partner and doctors; and choice within a religious discourse. The findings highlight ethical dilemmas for healthcare professionals in facilitating informed choice for antenatal screening where policy and practice guidelines adapt predominantly individualistic approaches. Women's preferences for decision-making with health professionals and/or their partner, with minimal emphasis on individual rights, suggest the need for clarification of the role of health professionals in supporting and facilitating decision-making to enhance women's autonomy. Policy and practice guidelines need to be (re)framed to facilitate decision-making processes for antenatal screening using relational approaches to autonomy.
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.