Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39982639›Full record

ArticleHealth care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy2025

Attitudes About NIPT Routinisation: A Report from a Qualitative Study of 20 UK Healthcare Professionals.

Peter D Young

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

Peter D YoungEthox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, England. peter.young@ethox.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5362-4728

Funding

Wellcome Trust 203132/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

All healthcare professionals (HCPs) have responsibilities to provide information to patients according to the duties found within UK decision-making guidance and with regards to theory about the doctor-patient relationship. While routinisation can be understood in a number of different ways, this paper is concerned with how routines might negatively affect patients in the decision-making process. Therefore, in this manuscript, medical decision making is understood as problematically routine when a medical test or procedure is framed as a standard one and-given the way options are presented-it is implied that someone can decide to use that test or treatment without being given sufficient opportunities to think through their choices. Routinisation, when understood in this way, can affect the quality and amount of information provided to patients and the ways in which patients reflect upon their choices when making decisions. With the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) into the UK healthcare system, bioethicists have questioned whether this new technology will be routinised and what the implications of routinisation on the decision-making process might be. While there have been numerous studies investigating the views and attitudes of pregnant women who use NIPT, there are fewer studies that look at the views and attitudes of healthcare professionals (HCPs). This study interviewed 20 UK-based HCPs who either offer NIPT or counselled pregnant women on the use of NIPT. One important finding was that many HCPs held the attitude that the NIPT decision-making process had become routine, however there was disagreement about whether routine NIPT was problematic or not. This study provides insights about the context that surrounds decision making for NIPT, and it raises important questions about how NIPT routinisation might be evaluated.

Identifiers

PMID39982639

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.