Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37593103›Full record

ArticlePEC innovation2023

Improving patient understanding of prenatal screening tests: Using naturally sampled frequencies, pictures, and accounting for individual differences.

Lauren M West, Gary L Brase

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PEC innovation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Lauren M WestDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA.
Gary L BraseDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Health professionals must communicate prenatal screening test results effectively to patients, but these tests involve very low prevalence and high false positive risks; a situation known to be difficult for people to understand. Methods: The present experiments evaluated the effectiveness of presenting prenatal screening test results for Trisomy 21, Trisomy 13, or DiGeorge Syndrome, using either naturally sampled frequencies or standard percentages. Participants were given a task of interpreting the posterior probability of an embryo having the condition. Results: People were significantly better with naturally sampled frequencies. Numerical literacy and visuospatial ability significantly accounted for individual differences in performance within conditions. Participants nevertheless did not differ in ratings of how useful the different presentation formats were, suggesting a lack of awareness of how format influenced understanding. These results held regardless of whether the respondents were undergraduates (Experiment 1) or members of the general population recruited online (Experiment 2). Conclusion: Using naturally sampled frequencies improves patient understanding of prenatal screening tests results, with low cost of implementation. Innovation: Using realistic prenatal screening test results, these results show how to improve patient counseling via the use of naturally sampled frequencies.

Indexed as

Decision makingGenetic counselingHealth literacyPrenatal diagnosisRisk assessmentTesting communication

Identifiers

PMID37593103
PMCPMC10429283

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.