ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2019
Offering a choice between NIPT and invasive PND in prenatal genetic counseling: the impact of clinician characteristics on patients' test uptake.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Healthcare professionals' perspectives on and experiences with non-invasive prenatal testing: a systematic review.Human genetics · 2025Pooled it
- Perceptions of severity and their influence on reproductive decision-making following reproductive genetic carrier screening.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Should the scope of NIPT be limited by a 'threshold of seriousness'?European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Professionals' views on providing personalized recurrence risks for de novo mutations: Implications for genetic counseling.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Factors influencing pregnant women's decision to accept or decline prenatal screening and diagnosis - a qualitative study.Journal of community genetics · 2024Article
- Factors Influencing the Decision-Making Process for Undergoing Invasive Prenatal Testing.Cureus · 2024Review
- Supporting patient decision-making in non-invasive prenatal testing: a comparative study of professional values and practices in England and France.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Article
- Women's experiences with non-invasive prenatal testing in Switzerland: a qualitative analysis.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Down syndrome screening and diagnosis practices in Europe, United States, Australia, and New Zealand from 1990-2021.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023Review
- Noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) results for participants of the eXtraordinarY babies study: Screening, counseling, diagnosis, and discordance.Journal of genetic counseling · 2023Article
- Observational
- Preference for secondary findings in prenatal and pediatric exome sequencing.Prenatal diagnosis · 2022Article
- Disparities in the acceptance of chromosomal microarray at the time of prenatal genetic diagnosis.Prenatal diagnosis · 2022Article
- Implementing non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in the Netherlands: An interview study exploring opinions about and experiences with societal pressure, reimbursement, and an expanding scope.Journal of genetic counseling · 2020Article
- Effect of education and attitude on health professionals' knowledge on prenatal screening.European journal of midwifery · 2020Article
- A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Influence of Prenatal Counseling on the Attitudes and Preferences Toward Invasive Prenatal Testing Among Women in Their First Trimester of Pregnancy (INVASIVE).Frontiers in genetics · 2020Article
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Testing options for pregnant women at increased risk of common aneuploidies are non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and invasive prenatal diagnosis (PND). Clinicians are challenged to comprehensively discuss the complex information in a patient-centered and non-directive manner, to allow for patients' informed decision-making. This study explored the information-centeredness, patient-centeredness, and level of non-directivity of different clinicians and examined group differences between their patients. First, semi-structured interviews with four senior obstetricians and one senior nurse were held regarding their information provision, their adaptation of a patient-centered attitude, and their practice of non-directivity. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and rated by four independent researchers. Secondly, 181 pregnant women were included in the study, of whom 82% opted for NIPT and 18% chose PND. Between clinicians, we assessed the distribution of choice ratios, patients' impression of clinicians' test preferences, and patients' knowledge scores. The results indicate that clinicians do not differ in their information-centeredness, but do differ in their patient-centeredness and their level of non-directivity. Significant differences in patients' NIPT/PND ratios were observed between clinicians, with the largest difference being 35 vs. 4% opting for invasive PND. Between 9 and 22% of the patients had an impression of their clinician's preference and chose in accordance with this preference. Patients' overall knowledge scores did not differ across clinicians. In conclusion, the differences in NIPT/PND ratios between clinicians indicate that clinicians' differing counseling approaches affect the choices their patients make. The interviews indicate a possible framing effect which may unintentionally steer the decision-making process.
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.