Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39082665›Full record

Trial reportMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2024

Identifying Strategies to Improve Shared Decision Making for Pregnant Patients' Decisions about Prenatal Genetic Screens and Diagnostic Tests.

Christina Collart, Caitlin Craighead, Meng Yao, Edward K Chien, Susannah Rose, Richard M Frankel, Marissa Coleridge, Bo Hu, Brownsyne Tucker Edmonds, Angela C Ranzini and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trust As the Foundation for Informed Decision-Making in Prenatal Genetic Screening and Diagnostic Testing: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  3. 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

11 authors.

Christina CollartObstetrics & Gynecology Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3035-5104
Caitlin CraigheadObstetrics & Gynecology Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Meng YaoQuantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3341-6830
Edward K ChienObstetrics & Gynecology Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Susannah RoseExperience Safety, Quality and Patient Experience, Clinical Transformation, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Richard M FrankelLerner College of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Marissa ColeridgeObstetrics & Gynecology Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Bo HuQuantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Brownsyne Tucker EdmondsIndiana University School of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis IN, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0023-4440
Angela C RanziniDivision of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The MetroHealth System, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Ruth M FarrellObstetrics & Gynecology Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Funding

Ensuring Patients' Informed Access to Noninvasive Prenatal TestingR01HG010092 · NHGRI · CLEVELAND CLINIC LERNER COM-CWRU · PI Ruth Farrell · 2017 to 2026
$5.9M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG010092
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePrenatal genetic screens and diagnostic tests are vital components of prenatal care. The first prenatal visit is a critical time in the decision-making process when patients decide whether to use these tests in addition to address a series of other essential prenatal care aspects. We conducted this study to examine the role of a shared decision-making (SDM) instrument to support these discussions.

methodsWe conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial of patients allocated to an SDM tool or usual care at their first prenatal visit. Participants completed a baseline survey to measure decision-making needs and preferences. Direct observation was conducted and analyzed using the OPTION scale to measure SDM during prenatal genetic testing discussions.

resultsLevels of SDM were similar across groups (

conclusionStudy findings demonstrate the need for targeted patient-focused and provider-focused efforts to improve SDM to enhance patients' informed decision making about these options. Importantly, patients' baseline knowledge and attitudes need to be considered given that patients with less knowledge may need more carefully crafted communication. HIGHLIGHTS: Choices about whether, when, and how to use prenatal genetic tests are highly preference-based decisions, with patients' baseline attitudes about these options as a major driver in health care discussions.The decision-making process is also shaped by patient preferences regarding a shared or informed decision-making process for medical decisions that are highly personal and have significant ramifications for obstetric outcomes.There is a need to develop targeted efforts to improve decision making and enhance patients' ability to make informed decisions about prenatal genetic tests in early pregnancy.

Indexed as

Decision Making, SharedGenetic TestingPrenatal DiagnosisAdultDecision MakingFemaleHumansPatient ParticipationPregnancyPrenatal Carehealthcare communicationprenatal genetic testingshared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID39082665
PMCPMC12884917

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.