ArticlePatient education and counseling2019
Women's preferences for and experiences with prenatal genetic testing decision making: Sociodemographic disparities in preference-concordant decision making.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Latinx attitudes, barriers, and experiences with genetic counseling and testing: A systematic review.Journal of genetic counseling · 2023Pooled it
- Impact of health literacy and primary language on the decision to pursue trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Trial
- "Es Lindo, Pero Estamos Perdidos"-Characterizing Facilitators and Barriers to Clinical Genetic Testing for Latino Populations.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Article
- Opportunities to optimize patient experience in the in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinic and the role of genetic counselors.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Article
- Evaluating parental personal utility of pediatric genetic and genomic testing in a diverse, multilingual population.HGG advances · 2024Article
- Telephone versus in-person genetic counseling for hereditary cancer risk: Patient predictors of differential outcomes.Journal of telemedicine and telecare · 2024Article
- Postpartum women's attitudes to disclosure of adult-onset conditions in pregnancy.Prenatal diagnosis · 2022Article
- Latinx individuals' knowledge of, preferences for, and experiences with prenatal genetic testing: a scoping review.Reproductive health · 2022Article
- Pregnant Hispanic women's views and knowledge of prenatal genetic testing.Journal of genetic counseling · 2021Article
- A qualitative study of Latinx parents' experiences of clinical exome sequencing.Journal of genetic counseling · 2020Article
- 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 HealthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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
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.