Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30558569›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2018

Improving women's knowledge about prenatal screening in the era of non-invasive prenatal testing for Down syndrome - development and acceptability of a low literacy decision aid.

Sian Karen Smith, Antonia Cai, Michelle Wong, Mariana S Sousa, Michelle Peate, Alec Welsh, Bettina Meiser, Rajneesh Kaur, Jane Halliday, Sharon Lewis and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Demographic Assessment of Down Syndrome: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

14 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Sian Karen SmithPsychosocial Research Group, Lowy Research Centre, C25, Prince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Corner High and Botany St, Kensington, Sydney New South Wales, 2033, Australia. sian.smith@unsw.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9541-2221
Antonia CaiPsychosocial Research Group, Lowy Research Centre, C25, Prince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Corner High and Botany St, Kensington, Sydney New South Wales, 2033, Australia.
Michelle WongPsychosocial Research Group, Lowy Research Centre, C25, Prince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Corner High and Botany St, Kensington, Sydney New South Wales, 2033, Australia.
Mariana S SousaPsychosocial Research Group, Lowy Research Centre, C25, Prince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Corner High and Botany St, Kensington, Sydney New South Wales, 2033, Australia.
Michelle PeateDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal Women's Hospital, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.
Alec WelshSchool of Women's and Children's Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Bettina MeiserPsychosocial Research Group, Lowy Research Centre, C25, Prince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Corner High and Botany St, Kensington, Sydney New South Wales, 2033, Australia.
Rajneesh KaurPsychosocial Research Group, Lowy Research Centre, C25, Prince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Corner High and Botany St, Kensington, Sydney New South Wales, 2033, Australia.
Jane HallidayMurdoch Children's Research Institute, Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Sharon LewisMurdoch Children's Research Institute, Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Lyndal TrevenaSydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Tatiane YanesSchool of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Kristine Barlow-StewartSydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Margot BarclayWomen's Services, Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
UNSW Sydney · AURoyal Children's Hospital · AUThe University of Sydney · AULiverpool Hospital · AURoyal Hospital for Women · AURoyal Women's Hospital · AU

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council 1034912
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccess to information about prenatal screening is important particularly in light of new techniques such as non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT). This study aimed to develop and examine the acceptability of a low literacy decision aid (DA) about Down syndrome screening among pregnant women with varying education levels and GPs.

methodsWe developed a DA booklet providing information about first-trimester combined testing, maternal serum screening, and NIPT. GPs and women participated in a telephone interview to examine the acceptability of the DA and measure screening knowledge before and after reading the DA. The knowledge measure was designed to assess whether women had understood the gist of the information presented in the decision aid. It comprised conceptual questions (e.g. screening tells you the chance of having a baby with Down syndrome) and numeric questions (e.g. the accuracy of different screening tests).

resultsTwenty-nine women and 18 GPs participated. Regardless of education level, most women found the booklet 'very' clearly presented (n = 22, 76%), and 'very' informative (n = 23, 80%). Overall, women's conceptual and numeric knowledge improved after exposure to the DA, from 4% having adequate knowledge to 69%. Women's knowledge of NIPT also improved after receiving the decision aid, irrespective of education. Most GPs found it 'very' clearly presented (n = 13, 72%), and that it would 'very much' facilitate decision-making (n = 16, 89%).

conclusionsThe DA was found to be acceptable to women as well as GPs. A comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy of the decision aid compared to standard information is an important next step. Strategies are needed on how to implement the tool in practice.

Indexed as

PamphletsAccess to InformationAdultAustraliaDown SyndromeFemaleHealth LiteracyHumansPregnancyPregnant PeoplePrenatal DiagnosisQualitative ResearchTeaching MaterialsDecision aidDown syndromeInformed decision-makingLow literacyNon-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT)Prenatal screeningPrenatal testingTrisomy 21

Identifiers

PMID30558569
PMCPMC6296052
OpenAlexW2905472245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.