Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35538635›Full record

ArticleThe Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology2022

Clinician views and experiences of non-invasive prenatal genetic screening tests in Australia.

Shannon McKinn, Nasrin Javid, Ainsley J Newson, Lucinda Freeman, Carissa Bonner, Antonia W Shand, Natasha Nassar, Katy J L Bell

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Shannon McKinnWiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6384-1745
Nasrin JavidSydney Institute for Women, Children and their Families, Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Ainsley J NewsonBioethics, Wiser Healthcare and Sydney Health Ethics, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Lucinda FreemanSchool of Women and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Carissa BonnerSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Antonia W ShandChildren's Hospital at Westmead Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4200-9295
Natasha NassarPaediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, Children's Hospital at Westmead Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Katy J L BellClinical Epidemiology, Wiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AURoyal Prince Alfred Hospital · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council 1104136National Health and Medical Research Council 1174523
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNon-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS) is being increasingly used by expectant parents. Much provision of this test in Australia is occurring in clinical settings where specialised genetic counselling is unavailable, such as general practice. Potential psychosocial consequences from this kind of prenatal genetic screening remain largely unexplored.

aimsTo explore clinicians' experiences with NIPS for aneuploidy, their perspectives of the benefits and harms of NIPS, clinicians' information needs, and their perceptions of the needs of expectant parents. MATERIALS AND

methodsQualitative, semi-structured interviews with 17 health professionals (clinical geneticists, obstetricians, genetic counsellors and general practitioners) who request and counsel for NIPS in Australian hospital and private practice settings, conducted between June 2019 and February 2020.

resultsFive themes were identified relating to clinicians' perceptions and experiences of NIPS in their practice: perceived benefits of NIPS, perceived harms of NIPS (with two subthemes: clinical harms and psychosocial harms), financial and equity-related concerns, counselling as a protective buffer against perceived harms, and clinicians' unmet education needs. While clinicians view NIPS as a useful and high-quality screening test, especially for detection of common trisomies, many participants had concerns about how NIPS has been implemented in practice, particularly the quality (and often absence) of pre-/post-test counselling and the routinisation of testing for sex chromosome aneuploidies, microdeletion and microduplication syndromes.

conclusionThese findings support the need for targeted clinician training around NIPS, and for a shared decision-making approach to support expectant parents' autonomous decisions about NIPS.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingPrenatal DiagnosisAneuploidyAustraliaFemaleHumansPregnancygenetic counsellinggenetic testingnon-invasive prenatal testingpregnancyprenatal diagnosis

Identifiers

PMID35538635
PMCPMC10946867
OpenAlexW4280539017

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.