ArticlePrenatal diagnosis2020
Initial psychometric analysis of novel instruments to assess decisional distress and decisional uncertainty in women who have considered using preimplantation genetic testing.
Article in Prenatal diagnosis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo analyze psychometric properties of two novel instruments assessing decisional distress and uncertainty experienced by individuals considering preimplantation genetic testing (PGT).
methodsThe new PGT Decisional Distress instrument (22 items) assesses negative/positive emotions. The new PGT Decisional Uncertainty instrument assesses Clarity about test benefits/disadvantages (5 items) and Certainty of having adequate information/support to make a good decision (7 items). Scales ranged from 0 to 4. Psychometrics (central tendencies, internal consistency reliability, and discriminant validity) were evaluated. Stratified analysis by decision stage was conducted. All participants had considered or used PGT in the previous 6 months.
resultsN = 106 females (mean age 36.5 ± 4.8 years; 16% non-Caucasian; 9% Hispanic) across 16 US states completed an online anonymous questionnaire. On average, respondents reported minimal distress (mean 0.96), high clarity (mean 3.26), and high certainty (mean 3.06), particularly those who had already decided compared to undecided women (P ≤ .02). Instruments had excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α's 0.92-0.94) and displayed sufficient inter-individual variability (SD's 0.75-0.89). Correlations confirmed expected patterns of association between instruments (P's < .01), indicating discriminant validity.
conclusionWe document initial reliability and validity of new instruments to measure emotional distress and uncertainty in female patients who have recently considered PGT for single-gene or chromosomal disorders.
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.