Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36653738›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2023

Decision-making process about prenatal genetic screening: how deeply do moms-to-be want to know from Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing?

Serena Oliveri, Giulia Ongaro, Ilaria Cutica, Giulia Menicucci, Debora Belperio, Francesca Spinella, Gabriella Pravettoni

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Serena Oliveri *Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Giulia Ongaro *Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy. giulia.ongaro@unimi.it.
Ilaria CuticaDepartment of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Giulia MenicucciEurofins Genoma Group, Molecular Genetics Laboratories, Rome, Italy.
Debora BelperioEurofins Genoma Group, Molecular Genetics Laboratories, Rome, Italy.
Francesca SpinellaEurofins Genoma Group, Molecular Genetics Laboratories, Rome, Italy.
Gabriella PravettoniApplied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrenatal information may be obtained through invasive diagnostic procedures and non-invasive screening procedures. Several psychological factors are involved in the decision to undergo a non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) but little is known about the decision-making strategies involved in choosing a specific level of in-depth NIPT, considering the increased availability and complexity of NIPT options. The main aim of this work is to assess the impact of psychological factors (anxiety about pregnancy, perception of risk in pregnancy, intolerance to uncertainty), and COVID-19 pandemic on the type of NIPT chosen, in terms of the number of conditions that are tested.

methodsA self-administered survey evaluated the decision-making process about NIPT. The final sample comprised 191 women (M

resultsAlmost all of the participants reported being aware of the existence of different types of NIPT and more than half reported having been informed by their gynecologist. Results showed no significant association between the period in which women underwent NIPT (before COVID-19 or during COVID-19) and the preferences for more expanded screening panel. Furthermore, regarding psychological variables, results showed a significant difference between perceived risk for the fetus based on the NIPT type groups, revealing that pregnant women who underwent the more expanded panel had a significantly higher level of perceived risk for the fetus than that reported by pregnant women who underwent the basic one. There was no statistically significant difference between the other psychological variables and NIPT type.

conclusionsOur findings indicate the paramount role of gynecologist and other health care providers, such as geneticists and psychologists, is to support decision-making process in NIPT, in order to overcome people's deficits in genetic knowledge, promote awareness about their preferences, and control anxiety related to the unborn child. Decision-support strategies are critical during the onset of prenatal care, according to the advances in prenatal genomics and to parent's needs.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsAdultFemaleGenetic TestingHumansPregnancyPregnant PeoplePrenatal DiagnosisCOVID-19Decision making processNon-invasive prenatal testingPrenatal genetic screeningPrenatal testing

Identifiers

PMID36653738
PMCPMC9845820

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.