ArticleGenetics in medicine open2024
Informal Prenatal Genetic Screening Education: What can you learn from Google and YouTube?
Article in Genetics in medicine open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Virality versus veracity: A systematic review of TikTok information on prenatal aneuploidy testing.Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
- The Meaning of Screening: Exploring user experience of an aneuploidy screening educational game.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Introduction: The goal of this paper is to explore what online education and decision support tools are freely available to patients about prenatal screening. Materials and Methods: We 1) conducted an environmental scan using Google Trends to identify and evaluate prenatal screening search terms, 2) created a list of websites and YouTube videos that would be easily accessed by a searcher and 3) characterized the information within those websites and videos, including an examination of their qualities as a decision support tool and a readability analysis. Results: Fifty websites, containing 62 unique educational resources, and 39 YouTube videos were analyzed. The websites were primarily educational, though the education was provided by a range of sources including non-profit and for-profit organizations, universities, and governments (i.e., public health departments). Readability scores (PEMAT-P) for the sites ranged from 50% to 92%, with a median score of 74%. Two of the websites we evaluated met all of the limited decision support standards we applied; four of the websites included patient stories or experiences and eight included some element of values clarification. Videos were more likely to include values clarification. Discussion: The information available to patients online is variable. While most is balanced and informative, much is difficult to read and missing key decision-making factors. Healthcare providers should work with patients to ensure they have basic comprehension of the prenatal genetic screening materials, possible result outcomes, and expected steps following a positive screening result.
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.