ArticleThe Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology2025
Public Perspectives Around Prenatal Screening of Chromosomal Abnormalities: A Focus Group Study Comparing Metropolitan and Rural/Regional Areas in Australia.
Article in The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology, 2025. 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.
- Australian Preferences for Prenatal Screening: A Discrete Choice Experiment Comparing Metropolitan and Rural/Regional Areas.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Article
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
backgroundThe widespread and rapid adoption of private payments for non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in Australia has introduced complexities to the decision-making process for the public regarding prenatal screening. NIPT has the potential to be a useful screening tool, but concerns have been raised about its cost, the psychological consequences of testing and the information available to support informed decision-making.
objectiveTo explore the attitudes, values and beliefs around prenatal screening in Australia, and how perspectives may differ between people living in metropolitan locations versus rural/regional locations. MATERIALS AND
methodsThree focus groups were conducted in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Participants (N = 25) were recruited by a market research group. Focus groups took place face-to-face in metropolitan and rural/regional areas, and online via videoconference. Discussions were transcribed and analysed thematically.
resultsParticipants generally expressed interest in undertaking prenatal screening but held misconceptions about the purpose of NIPT (i.e. screening, not diagnosis) and the conditions assessed. There were varied opinions among participants on expanding the scope of screening: some felt additional information provided reassurance, whilst others thought it would increase stress due to the decreased accuracy. People living in rural/regional areas had greater concerns over access to screening (cost, wait times and distance) than people living in metropolitan areas.
conclusionOur findings demonstrate different approaches are needed to improve understanding of NIPT (to ensure informed consent), and to improve access to NIPT for people living in rural/regional areas. The pre-test information needs to account for the range of perspectives observed across geographic locations.
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.