Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41775669›Full record

ArticlePrenatal diagnosis2026

Preferences of Pregnant Women and Healthcare Professionals on First-Trimester Ultrasound Screening for Fetal Anomalies: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Eline E R Lust, Kim Bronsgeest, Ian Smith, Lidewij Henneman, Neeltje M T H Crombag, Caterina M Bilardo, Robert-Jan H Galjaard, Esther Sikkel, Mireille N Bekker, Monique C Haak

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Prenatal diagnosis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Eline E R LustDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0009-3266-3646
Kim BronsgeestDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Ian SmithCentre for Health Protection, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
Lidewij HennemanDepartment of Human Genetics and Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3531-0597
Neeltje M T H CrombagDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6808-0874
Caterina M BilardoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Robert-Jan H GaljaardDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Esther SikkelDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Mireille N BekkerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7372-4291
Monique C HaakDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0443-1997

Funding

ZonMw 543010001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe first-trimester anomaly scan (FTAS) allows early detection of fetal structural anomalies. Decisions on timing and scan protocol influence its performance. Understanding how pregnant women and healthcare professionals value these aspects is essential for shaping screening programs. This study aims to identify which aspects of first-trimester ultrasound screening are considered most important.

methodA discrete choice experiment was conducted between July and August 2025. It included five attributes: sensitivity (30%, 50%, 90%), gestational age at diagnosis (12, 16, 22 weeks), false positive rate (20%, 40%, 60%), false negative rate (0.1%, 1%, 5%) and types of anomalies detected (most severe only vs. most severe and other). Additionally, general attitudes toward the FTAS were assessed.

resultsQuestionnaires were completed by 1963 pregnant women who opted for FTAS and 1068 healthcare professionals (203 medical doctors, 865 primary care professionals). Most important attributes for pregnant women and healthcare professionals were sensitivity and false positive rate. 85.1% of pregnant women and 58.1% of healthcare professionals (strongly) agreed that the FTAS should be available to pregnant women.

conclusionPregnant women and healthcare professionals support FTAS availability. Optimization should focus on maximizing sensitivity and minimizing false positive rates, whereas gestational age at diagnosis and the range of anomalies detected are considered less important in influencing preferences.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorCongenital AbnormalitiesHealth PersonnelPatient PreferencePregnant PeopleUltrasonography, PrenatalAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelFemaleGestational AgeHumansPregnancyPregnancy Trimester, FirstSurveys and Questionnairesabnormalitiesattitude of health personnelchoice behaviordiscrete choice experimentearly diagnosisfetal screeningfetuspatient preferenceprenatal ultrasonographysurveys and questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID41775669
PMCPMC13070217

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.