ArticlePloS one2022
Nationwide implementation of the non-invasive prenatal test: Evaluation of a blended learning program for counselors.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patients' perspectives on prenatal screening results that suggest maternal cancer: A qualitative analysis.Prenatal diagnosis · 2023Trial
- Maternity care professionals' views on good counselling for prenatal anomaly screening: a qualitative inquiry.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Comparing the Introduction and Implementation of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) in Japan, the Netherlands, and the United States: An Integrative Review.Prenatal diagnosis · 2025Review
- Article
- Negotiating Awareness: Dutch Midwives' Experiences of Noninvasive Prenatal Screening Counseling.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study assesses the results of a mandatory blended learning-program for counselors (e.g. midwives, sonographers, obstetricians) guiding national implementation of the Non-Invasive Prenatal Test (NIPT). We assessed counselors' 1) knowledge about prenatal aneuploidy screening, 2) factors associated with their knowledge (e.g. counselors' characteristics, attitudes towards NIPT), and 3) counselors' attitudes regarding the blended learning. A cross-sectional online pretest-posttest implementation survey was sent to all 2,813 Dutch prenatal counselors. Multivariate linear regression analyses were performed to identify associations between counselors' knowledge and e.g. their professional backgrounds, work experience and attitudes towards NIPT. At T0 and T1 1,635 and 913 counselors completed the survey, respectively. Overall results show an increased mean number of correct answered knowledge questions; 23/35 (66%) items at T0 and 28/37 (76%) items at T1. Knowledge gaps on highly specific topics remained. Work experience and secondary care work-setting were positively associated with a higher level of knowledge. Most counselors (74%) showed positive attitudes towards the blended learning program. The mandatory blended learning, along with learning by experience through implementation of NIPT, has facilitated an increase in counselors' knowledge and was well received. New implementations in healthcare may benefit from requiring blended learning for healthcare providers, especially if tailored to professionals' learning goals.
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.