ArticleEuropean journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X2024
The role of patient-reported experiences in disclosing genetic prenatal testing: Findings from a large-scale survey on pregnant women.
Article in European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Pregnant women can choose from different prenatal genetic tests throughout their maternity journey. We aim to investigate the clinical, societal, and economic determinants influencing the selection of different options (non-invasive, invasive, or both). Methods: A systematic survey focusing on maternity pathways was launched by the Region of Tuscany, Italy, to collect data on pregnant women's experience, outcomes and satisfaction levels. Drawing from this survey, we retrospectively analyzed data on women who filled out the second-trimester questionnaire between March 2019 and February 2023 (n = 27,337), providing complete data on relevant variables. Logistic regression models were applied to identify the factors contributing to a higher likelihood of opting for non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and invasive testing. Results: Among the participants, 42.7 % chose only NIPT, 3.8 % opted for invasive tests exclusively, 1.3 % underwent both tests, and 52.2 % did not pursue any genetic testing. NIPT was more often chosen by older, Italian, highly educated, nulliparous women, who perceived better health, were employed (versus unemployed), had higher economic status, planned pregnancy, received hospital-based care (versus counseling center), under gynecologist supervision (versus midwife), not opted for combined testing and received pregnancy vaccinations. Conversely, invasive testing was more prevalent among older women but less common among those who were nulliparous, had Italian nationality, and had a perceived better health status. This group also tended to experience unplanned and high-risk pregnancy, did not take folate during pregnancy, received public hospital-based assistance, less frequently chose combined tests or NIPT, and had frequent delays in examinations. Conclusions: Various factors beyond clinical considerations influence the selection of a prenatal test. Therefore, NIPT pathways should include balanced, high-quality information about benefits and limitations, ensuring laboratory specialists' active and integrated involvement in decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.