ArticlePEC innovation2026
Translation and adaptation of the multidimensional measure of informed choice and the decision regret scale for evaluating non-invasive prenatal test implementation in Norwegian public healthcare.
Article in PEC innovation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Norway recently implemented publicly funded non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for pregnant women aged 35 years or older. To evaluate informed decision-making and decision regret in this context, valid and reliable Norwegian instruments are needed. This study aimed to translate, culturally adapt, and psychometrically evaluate the Multidimensional Measure of Informed Choice (MMIC) and Decision Regret Scale (DRS) for use in Norwegian antenatal care. Methods: Following established cross-cultural adaptation guidelines, we conducted forward and backward translation, expert committee review, patient representative feedback, and cognitive interviews. Psychometric evaluation included 120 pregnant women participating in the DIANA study, a Norwegian evaluation of the NIPT screening program. Participants completed the MMIC three weeks after NIPT blood sampling and the DRS four weeks later. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and content validity were assessed. Results: The Norwegian MMIC and DRS demonstrated comparable performance to the original English instruments. Adaptation identified linguistic, cultural, and medical terminology differences particularly regarding the terms «baby," "chance," and "decision versus choice." Cronbach's alpha coefficients were 0.63 for knowledge, 0.98 for attitude, and 0.82 for deliberation indicating acceptable to excellent reliability. Conclusions: This study provides the first reliable and culturally adapted Norwegian versions of the MMIC and DRS, enabling evaluation of informed decision-making and decision regret in prenatal screening. Innovation: Patient perspectives were included early in the adaptation process, and procedures followed the COSMIN study checklist standards, supporting evaluation of NIPT and other health care decisions.
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.