ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2020
Qualitative investigation of the factors that generate ambivalent feelings in women who give birth after receiving negative results from non-invasive prenatal testing.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comprehensiveness, quality, and readability of non-invasive prenatal testing information on Japanese medical institution websites.PEC innovation · 2026Article
- Comparing the Introduction and Implementation of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) in Japan, the Netherlands, and the United States: An Integrative Review.Prenatal diagnosis · 2025Review
- Aspiring toward equitable benefits from genomic advances to individuals of ancestrally diverse backgrounds.American journal of human genetics · 2024Review
- Advancements of non-invasive prenatal testing: the role of obstetricians.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Review
- Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT): Reliability, Challenges, and Future Directions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Preconception education program for non-invasive prenatal testing focused on interest in genetics among female university students in Japan: a quasi-experimental study comparing pre-intervention, post-intervention, and three-month follow-up results.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2023Article
- False-positives and false-negatives in non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): what can we learn from a meta-analyses on > 750,000 tests?Molecular cytogenetics · 2022Article
- Development and psychometric properties of the maternal ambivalence scale in spanish women.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Observational
- Fetal information as shared information: using NIPT to test for adult-onset conditions.Monash bioethics review · 2021Article
- Postpartum questionnaire survey of women who tested negative in a non-invasive prenatal testing: examining negative emotions towards the test.Journal of human genetics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
30 authors at 20 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWomen who receive negative results from non-invasive prenatal genetic testing (NIPT) may find that they later have mixed or ambivalent feelings, for example, feelings of accepting NIPT and regretting undergoing the test. This study aimed to investigate the factors generating ambivalent feelings among women who gave birth after having received negative results from NIPT.
methodsA questionnaire was sent to women who received a negative NIPT result, and a contents analysis was conducted focusing on ambivalent expressions for those 1562 women who responded the questionnaire. The qualitative data gathered from the questionnaire were analyzed using the N-Vivo software package.
resultsEnvironmental factors, genetic counseling-related factors, and increased anticipatory anxiety, affected the feeling of ambivalence among pregnant women. Furthermore, pregnant women desired more information regarding the detailed prognosis for individuals with Down syndrome and living with them and/or termination, assuming the possibility that they were positive.
conclusionsThree major interrelated factors affected the feeling of ambivalence in women. Highlighting and discussing such factors during genetic counseling may resolve some of these ambivalences, thereby enhancing the quality of decisions made by pregnant women.
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.