Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30502029›Full record

ArticlePatient education and counseling2019

Women's preferences for and experiences with prenatal genetic testing decision making: Sociodemographic disparities in preference-concordant decision making.

Fabiola Molina, Christine Dehlendorf, Steven E Gregorich, Miriam Kuppermann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient education and counseling, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Communication Preferences During Pregnancy Care Among Patients With Primary Spanish Language: A Scoping Review.Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health
    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

4 authors.

Fabiola MolinaDepartment of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, USA.
Christine DehlendorfDepartment of Family & Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, USA; Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences and Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
Steven E GregorichDepartment of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
Miriam KuppermannDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences and Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, USA. Electronic address: miriam.kuppermann@ucsf.edu.

Funding

Social Interventions to address disparities In young adult tobacco useP60MD006902 · NIMHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI BIBBINS-DOMINGO, KIRSTEN · 2012 to 2016
$6.4M
Expanded Prenatal Testing Options and Informed ChoiceR01HD049686 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI KUPPERMANN, MIRIAM · 2006 to 2010
$1.8M
Promoting Research Opportunities Fully--Prospective Academics Transforming HealthR25MD006832 · NIMHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI ARONSON, LOUISE, FERNANDEZ, ALICIA · 2011 to 2015
$1.7M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD049686NIMHD NIH HHS P60 MD006902NIMHD NIH HHS R25 MD006832
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate women's preferred approach to prenatal genetic testing decision making and assess concordance between preference and experience.

methodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of data from two randomized trials conducted between 2007-2012. Survey items assessed participants' preferred approach to decision making and whether they experienced a preference-concordant decision process. Logistic regression estimated relationships between patient characteristics and these outcomes.

results56% of women preferred autonomous decision making, 39% preferred shared decision making, and 5% preferred a provider-driven approach. Only 57% experienced preference-concordant decision making. On bivariate analysis, black women, Spanish-speaking Latinas and women with less education were less likely to experience this outcome than white, more educated women. Numeracy and preferring a provider-driven approach fully mediated observed disparities in preference-concordant decision making for most participants, except for Spanish-speaking Latinas, who were still less likely to have experienced this outcome after accounting for these factors.

conclusionNumeracy, preference for provider-driven decision processes, and language barriers were key drivers of disparities in preference-concordant decision making. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Given the values-sensitive and quantitative nature of prenatal testing decisions, nuanced counseling and interventions to address language barriers, numeracy gaps, and decision-making preferences are needed to tailor counseling to patient's backgrounds and desires.

Indexed as

CommunicationDecision MakingGenetic TestingPatient ParticipationPatient PreferencePhysician-Patient RelationsAdultBlack PeopleCounselingEducational StatusEthnicityFemaleHispanic or LatinoHumansPrenatal DiagnosisRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicConcordanceDisparitiesPatient-centered communicationPatient participationPreferencesPrenatal genetic testing decision makingShared decision making

Identifiers

PMID30502029
PMCPMC6421100

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.