BACKGROUND: Many pregnant women experience anxiety while waiting for the results of diagnostic tests. Policies and practices intended to reduce this anxiety require evaluation. OBJECTIVES: To test the following two hypotheses: * That giving amniocentesis results out on a fixed date alters maternal anxiety during the waiting period, compared with a policy of telling parents that the result will be issued "when available" (i.e. variable date). * That issuing early results from a rapid molecular test alters maternal anxiety during the waiting period, compared with not receiving any results prior to the karyotype. The effects of the two interventions on anxiety 1 month after receiving karyotype results were also examined. DESIGN: A multicentre, randomised, controlled, open fixed sample, 2 x 2 factorial design trial, with equal randomisation. SETTING: The prenatal diagnosis clinics in 12 hospitals in England offering amniocentesis as a diagnostic test for Down's syndrome. SAMPLE: Two hundred and twenty-six women who had had an amniocentesis were randomised between June 2002 and July 2004. Eight women with abnormal results or test failure were excluded post-randomisation. INTERVENTIONS: Issuing karyotype results on a prespecified fixed date, rather than issuing them as soon as they became available. Issuing karyotype results alone, or subsequent to issuing results from a rapid molecular test for the most common chromosomal abnormalities. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Average anxiety during the waiting period, calculated using daily scores from the short version of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Anxiety 1 month after receiving karyotype results, measured using the short form STAI. RESULTS: Issuing early results from a partial but rapid test reduced maternal anxiety by a clinically significant amount during the waiting period (mean daily score 12.5 versus 14.8; scale score difference -2.36, 95% CI -1.2, -3.6), compared with receiving only the full karyotype results. There was no evidence that giving out karyotype results on a fixed or on a variable date altered maternal anxiety during the waiting period (mean daily score 13.2 versus 14.2; scale score difference -1.02, 95% CI -2.2, 0.2). One month after receiving normal karyotype results, anxiety was low in all groups, but women who had been given rapid test results tended to be more anxious than those who had not (mean single day score 9.2 versus 8.3; mean scale score difference 0.95, 95% CI -0.03, 1.9). This small to moderate effect did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid testing was a beneficial addition to karyotyping, at least in the short term. This does not necessarily imply that early results would be preferred to comprehensive ones if women had to choose between them. Because there are no clear advantages in anxiety terms of issuing karyotype results as soon as they become available, or on a fixed date, women could be given a choice between them.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Many pregnant women experience anxiety while waiting for the results of diagnostic tests. Policies and practices intended to reduce this anxiety require evaluation. OBJECTIVES: To test the following two hypotheses: * That giving amniocentesis results out on a fixed date alters maternal anxiety during the waiting period, compared with a policy of telling parents that the result will be issued "when available" (i.e. variable date). * That issuing early results from a rapid molecular test alters maternal anxiety during the waiting period, compared with not receiving any results prior to the karyotype. The effects of the two interventions on anxiety 1 month after receiving karyotype results were also examined. DESIGN: A multicentre, randomised, controlled, open fixed sample, 2 x 2 factorial design trial, with equal randomisation. SETTING: The prenatal diagnosis clinics in 12 hospitals in England offering amniocentesis as a diagnostic test for Down's syndrome. SAMPLE: Two hundred and twenty-six women who had had an amniocentesis were randomised between June 2002 and July 2004. Eight women with abnormal results or test failure were excluded post-randomisation. INTERVENTIONS: Issuing karyotype results on a prespecified fixed date, rather than issuing them as soon as they became available. Issuing karyotype results alone, or subsequent to issuing results from a rapid molecular test for the most common chromosomal abnormalities. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Average anxiety during the waiting period, calculated using daily scores from the short version of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Anxiety 1 month after receiving karyotype results, measured using the short form STAI. RESULTS: Issuing early results from a partial but rapid test reduced maternal anxiety by a clinically significant amount during the waiting period (mean daily score 12.5 versus 14.8; scale score difference -2.36, 95% CI -1.2, -3.6), compared with receiving only the full karyotype results. There was no evidence that giving out karyotype results on a fixed or on a variable date altered maternal anxiety during the waiting period (mean daily score 13.2 versus 14.2; scale score difference -1.02, 95% CI -2.2, 0.2). One month after receiving normal karyotype results, anxiety was low in all groups, but women who had been given rapid test results tended to be more anxious than those who had not (mean single day score 9.2 versus 8.3; mean scale score difference 0.95, 95% CI -0.03, 1.9). This small to moderate effect did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid testing was a beneficial addition to karyotyping, at least in the short term. This does not necessarily imply that early results would be preferred to comprehensive ones if women had to choose between them. Because there are no clear advantages in anxiety terms of issuing karyotype results as soon as they become available, or on a fixed date, women could be given a choice between them.
Authors: Tianjiao Chu; Suveyda Yeniterzi; Aleksandar Rajkovic; W Allen Hogge; Mary Dunkel; Patricia Shaw; Kimberly Bunce; David G Peters Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2014-02-27 Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: Tianjiao Chu; Suveyda Yeniterzi; Svetlana A Yatsenko; Mary Dunkel; Patricia A Shaw; Kimberly D Bunce; David G Peters Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 3.240