ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2025
Patients' experiences using an educational virtual assistant for review of reproductive genetic screening results.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 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.
- Patients' experiences using an educational virtual assistant for review of reproductive genetic screening results.Journal of genetic counseling · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This observational study aimed to capture patients' experiences after reviewing carrier screening (CS) and/or noninvasive prenatal cell-free DNA testing (NIPT) results with Natera's Educational Virtual Assistant (NEVA). Patients, partners of patients, or other individuals designated to review the patients' results were included if they consented to follow-up contact. Eligible individuals were sent a text message or e-mail requesting that they complete a survey. The survey collected demographic data and patients' experiences with NEVA across five domains (overall satisfaction, ease of use, overall sentiments, knowledge and perceived understanding, and preferences for results delivery and education) using a combination of multiple-choice, ranking, and Likert-scale questions. Comparisons were made across group proportions for survey responses. Ordinal and logistic regression models were constructed to examine the relationships while adjusting for previous knowledge of test results. Among 1133 survey respondents, 193 had negative CS, 79 had positive CS, 845 had low-risk NIPT, and 16 had high-risk NIPT results. Across all groups, 79.1% reported being satisfied with their experience, 90.5% indicated that NEVA was easy to use, 71.8% reported favorable sentiments regarding their interaction with NEVA, 77.8% correctly reported knowledge of their results, and 86.4% indicated perceived understanding of their results. The most preferred method for reviewing results was using a virtual assistant across the negative CS, positive CS, and low-risk NIPT cohorts; participants with high-risk NIPT preferred talking to a genetic counselor. Participants with low-risk NIPT had greater odds of reporting overall satisfaction (OR: 3.98, p < 0.001) and favorable sentiments (OR: 9.49, p < 0.001) compared to participants with high-risk NIPT. No differences were found among participants who received CS. Survey responses demonstrate the feasibility and utility of NEVA for reproductive genetic testing results delivery and suggest some differences in acceptance for patients receiving NIPT results.
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.