Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30297905›Full record

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.

Sanne L van der Steen, Diewertje Houtman, Iris M Bakkeren, Robert-Jan H Galjaard, Marike G Polak, Jan J Busschbach, Aad Tibben, Sam R Riedijk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Should the scope of NIPT be limited by a 'threshold of seriousness'?European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
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

8 authors.

Sanne L van der SteenDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Diewertje HoutmanDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. d.houtman@erasmusmc.nl.
Iris M BakkerenDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Robert-Jan H GaljaardDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Marike G PolakDepartment of Psychology, Education & Child Studies (DPECS), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jan J BusschbachDepartment of Psychiatry, section Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Aad TibbenDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Sam R RiedijkDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Choice BehaviorPatient PreferenceAdultFemaleGenetic CounselingGenetic TestingHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhysiciansPregnancyPrenatal Diagnosis

Identifiers

PMID30297905
PMCPMC6336774

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.