Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40386961›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2025

Time for a New Norm: Experiences of 'Being Informed' and 'Having Choice' for Prenatal Screening for Chromosomal Conditions: A Qualitative Study.

Niamh Ireland-Blake, Fiona Cram, Kevin Dew, Sondra Bacharach, Peter Stone, Jeanne Snelling, Christina Buchanan, Sara Filoche

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health 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

8 authors.

Niamh Ireland-BlakeDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Women's Health, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Fiona CramKatoa Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand.
Kevin DewSchool of Social and Cultural Studies, Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand.
Sondra BacharachSchool of History, Philosophy, Political Science and International Relations, Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand.
Peter StoneFaculty of Medical and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Jeanne SnellingFaculty of Law, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Christina BuchananAuckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand.
Sara FilocheDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Women's Health, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-0874-6494

Funding

This study has been funded by the Health Research Council (HRC 20-902) and Istar Ltd.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundParticipating in prenatal screening for chromosomal conditions is premised on an informed choice to accept or decline.

aimThe aims of this paper are to describe people's experiences of informed choice and how these relate to the experience of prenatal screening.

methodThirty-eight people were recruited and their experiences were explored through narrative enquiry, following an iterative and in-depth reflexive analysis.

findingsInformed choice meant 'being informed' in ways that met people's cultural needs, values and preferences (e.g., how much information and how it was communicated) and 'having choice' (e.g., choice about 'being informed', who was involved and choice to enact the decision). 'Being informed' affected 'having choice'. Four themes describe experiences of how informed choice as an ethical principle was upheld: 'All I knew it was something that should be done', 'Going in blind', 'It would have been frowned upon' and 'I knew I could decline'. For example, the experience of 'I knew I could decline' describes how the ethical principle of 'informed choice' was fully realised. There was a choice about how information was shared that meant people gained knowledge about prenatal screening and a choice about who was involved in this process. A relational experience for 'being informed' (e.g., with their pregnancy carer and the decision-makers) was upheld. People knew that they would be fully supported in enacting their decision. These experiences were not common.

conclusionsIn the absence of 'being informed', the possibility for 'having choice' is eroded. 'Having choice' requires people to have information so that it meets their needs, values and preferences to make sense of it as it relates to their values for decision-making. Considering 'being informed' as an epistemic justice obligation would mitigate eroding the possibility of 'having choice'. For example, when people experienced prenatal screening as 'I knew I could decline', it was an epistemically just experience as all the elements for 'being informed' for them were met and the relational experience upheld 'having choice'. The challenge remains for this to be the experience for everyone considering prenatal screening, not just in Aotearoa but globally. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The interview questions were reviewed through group discussion with eight people who had lived experiences of prenatal screening for chromosomal conditions. The research was also informed by a researcher who had no lived experience of the screening service as a counter-view. The premise of this study is to highlight how women and pregnant people experience the consenting process for prenatal screening. The findings may inform organisations, researchers and practitioners about developing approaches for better enabling informed choice in future practice.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorChromosome DisordersInformed ConsentPrenatal DiagnosisAdultDecision MakingFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedPregnancyQualitative ResearchYoung Adultchromosomal conditionsepistemic injusticeepistemic justiceinformed choiceprenatal screening

Identifiers

PMID40386961
PMCPMC12086648

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.