Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31309357›Full record

ArticleHealth care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy2019

A Capabilities Approach to Prenatal Screening for Fetal Abnormalities.

Greg Stapleton, Wybo Dondorp, Peter Schröder-Bäck, Guido de Wert

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Greg StapletonDepartment of Health, Ethics and Society, GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. greg.stapleton@maastrichtuniversity.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8009-3195
Wybo DondorpDepartment of Health, Ethics and Society, GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Peter Schröder-BäckDepartment of International Health, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Guido de WertDepartment of Health, Ethics and Society, GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

International guidelines recommend that prenatal screening for fetal abnormalities should only be offered within a non-directive framework aimed at enabling women in making meaningful reproductive choices. Whilst this position is widely endorsed, developments in cell-free fetal DNA based Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing are now raising questions about its continued suitability for guiding screening policy and practice. This issue is most apparent within debates on the scope of the screening offer. Implied by the aim of enabling meaningful reproductive choices is the idea that screening services should support women in accessing prenatal tests that best enable them to realize the types of reproductive choice that they find important. However, beyond whatever options meet the quality standards required for facilitating an informed decision, the remaining criteria of facilitating autonomous choice is strictly non-directive. As a result, policy makers receive little indication prior to consultation with each individual woman, about what conditions should be prioritized during the offer of screening. In this paper we try to address this issue by using the capabilities approach to further specify the non-directive aim of enabling meaningful reproductive choice. The resulting framework is then used to assess the relative importance of offering prenatal screening where concerning different types of genetic condition. We conclude that greater priority may be ascribed to offering prenatal screening for conditions that more significantly diminish a woman's central capabilities. It follows that serious congenital and earlier-onset conditions are more likely to fulfill these criteria.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingPersonal AutonomyPrenatal DiagnosisAdultDecision MakingFemaleGenetic CounselingHumansPregnancyAbortionCapabilities approachEthicsJusticePrenatal screeningReproductive autonomy

Identifiers

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.