Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38423995›Full record

ArticlePrenatal diagnosis2024

Patient experiences with prenatal cell-free DNA screening in a safety net setting.

Kirsten A Riggan, Amelia Barwise, Jane Q Yap, Niamh Condon, Megan A Allyse

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Prenatal diagnosis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kirsten A RigganBiomedical Ethics Research Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0127-9555
Amelia BarwiseBiomedical Ethics Research Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Jane Q YapDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA.
Niamh CondonDepartment of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, University of Florida Health, Jacksonville, Florida, USA.
Megan A AllyseBiomedical Ethics Research Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6136-9256
Mayo Clinic · USMayo Clinic in Florida · USUniversity of Florida Health · US

Funding

Factors Influencing Access and Utilization of Genetic Prenatal Care Services Among Women from Underserved PopulationsK01HG009542 · NHGRI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI ALLYSE, MEGAN A. · 2018 to 2022
$809k
NHGRI NIH HHS K01 HG009542
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThirty-five states, including Florida, now cover cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening of fetuses for all pregnant patients enrolled in state public insurance programs. We interviewed Black and Hispanic obstetric patients at a safety net clinic in Florida shortly after the state rolled out cfDNA as a first-tier screening method for publicly insured patients.

methodsBlack and Hispanic patients receiving prenatal care from a prenatal or maternal fetal medicine clinic at a federally qualified health center in Jacksonville, FL were invited to participate in a qualitative interview in English or Spanish to explore experiences and perceptions of prenatal cfDNA screening. Participants were recruited following their first prenatal visit when cfDNA is typically introduced. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analyzed for iterative themes based on principles of grounded theory.

resultsOne hundred Black and Hispanic patients (n = 51 non-Hispanic Black, n = 43 Hispanic, n = 3 Hispanic Black, n = 3 Not Reported/Other) completed an interview. Participants described minimal opportunity for pre-screening counseling and limited health literacy about cfDNA or its uses. Some believed that cfDNA could positively impact pregnancy health. Many were unsure if they had received cfDNA even though they were aware of the information provided by it. Most participants expressed an interest in cfDNA as a means for early detection of fetal sex and as an additional indication of general fetal health.

conclusionsPatient experiences indicate limited informed consent and decision-making for cfDNA, discordant with professional guidelines on pre-screen counseling. Our findings suggest that there should be additional investment in implementing cfDNA in safety net settings to ensure that patients and providers receive the support necessary for effective patient counseling and follow-on care for the ethical implementation of cfDNA.

Indexed as

Cell-Free Nucleic AcidsNoninvasive Prenatal TestingFemaleHumansPatient Outcome AssessmentPregnancyPrenatal CarePrenatal DiagnosisCell-Free Nucleic Acids

Identifiers

PMID38423995
PMCPMC11027152
OpenAlexW4392352652

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.