ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2021
Decision making on antenatal screening results: A comparative Q-method study of women from two Chinese cities.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prenatal diagnosis strategies and pregnancy outcomes in the Luohe region of China in the context of increasing maternal age.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- What are they considering when they face a fetus with birth defects? A qualitative study on ethical attitudes of health professionals in China.Global health research and policy · 2024Article
- Challenges of palliative care integration into routine hospital care in Iran: A Q-method inquiry on key healthcare providers' prospects.Health promotion perspectives · 2024Article
- Decision making on antenatal screening results: A comparative Q-method study of women from two Chinese cities.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough an integral part of ethical and quality health care, little is known about the informed decision making of Chinese women with different socioeconomic backgrounds within the context of antenatal testing.
methodsTo explore women's viewpoints on informed decision making regarding antenatal screening, a Q-methodology study that combines both quantitative factor analysis and interviews was conducted between June 2016 and February 2017 in Shanghai and Duyun. A total of 169 women (84 Shanghai and 85 Duyun) participated in the study of 41 ranked statements along a Q-sorting grid.
resultsUsing by-person factor analysis, five distinct viewpoints are identified: (a) choice is shared with the partner/husband, but the mother has the right to make the final decision; (b) having antenatal tests is not about choice but about a mother's responsibility; (c) choice is a shared decision led primarily by the partner/husband and secondarily by the doctors; (d) choice should be made using the advice of doctors, but the decision should be made with the partner/husband; and (e) choice is a responsibility shared with the partner, family and doctors.
conclusionsThe study reveals that women with better education and higher incomes demonstrate more autonomy than those with less education. The nuclear family clearly emerges as the main decision makers in health-care services in China. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The 169 participants shared their views and stories for at least an hour. They were debriefed after the interviews and contributed their thoughts on our study design and interpretation of the data.
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.