ArticleJournal of community genetics2021
Reproductive decision-making in the context of hereditary cancer: the effects of an online decision aid on informed decision-making.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genetically guided precision medicine clinical decision support tools: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Pooled it
- IVF success rates in individuals accessing preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic conditions (PGT-M): a single centre retrospective cohort study of 572 IVF cycles.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Article
- Danish heritable retinoblastoma survivors' perspectives on reproductive choices: "It's important for me, not to pass on this condition".Journal of genetic counseling · 2023Article
- The effects of an online decision aid to support the reproductive decision-making process of genetically at risk couples-A pilot study.Journal of genetic counseling · 2023Article
- Impact ofCancers · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 10 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Individuals having a genetic predisposition to cancer and their partners face challenging decisions regarding their wish to have children. This study aimed to determine the effects of an online decision aid to support couples in making an informed decision regarding their reproductive options. A nationwide pretest-posttest study was conducted in the Netherlands among 131 participants between November 2016 and May 2018. Couples were eligible for participation if one partner had a pathogenic variant predisposing for an autosomal dominant hereditary cancer syndrome. Participants completed a questionnaire before use (T0), and at 3 months (T3) after use of the decision aid to assess the primary outcome measure informed decision-making, and the secondary outcome measures decisional conflict, knowledge, realistic expectations, level of deliberation, and decision self-efficacy. T0-T3 comparisons show an overall positive effect for all outcome measures (all ps < 0.05; knowledge (ES = - 1.05), decisional conflict (ES = 0.99), participants' decision self-efficacy (ES = -0.55), level of deliberation (ES = - 0.50), and realistic expectations (ES = - 0.44). Informed decision-making increased over time and 58.0% of the participants made an informed reproductive decision at T3. The online decision aid seems to be an appropriate tool to complement standard reproductive counseling to support our target group in making an informed reproductive decision. Use of the decision aid may lessen the negative psychological impact of decision-making on couples' daily life and wellbeing.
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.