Literature DB >> 19104360

Computerized prenatal genetic testing decision-assisting tool: a randomized controlled trial.

Miriam Kuppermann1, Mary E Norton, Elena Gates, Steven E Gregorich, Lee A Learman, Sanae Nakagawa, Vickie A Feldstein, James Lewis, A Eugene Washington, Robert F Nease.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines for fetal aneuploidy testing recommend that screening and diagnostic testing be made available to pregnant women of all ages and that providers explain the differences between these tests to help their patients make informed testing decisions. We sought to estimate the effect of a computerized, interactive prenatal testing decision tool on prenatal testing decision making.
METHODS: Four hundred ninety-six English- or Spanish-speaking women at 20 or fewer weeks of gestation were randomly assigned to view the interactive prenatal testing decision tool or the California Department of Health Services' educational booklet. Primary outcomes were knowledge, risk awareness, intervention satisfaction, decisional conflict, and among women aged at least 35 years, use of invasive diagnostic testing.
RESULTS: Women assigned to the interactive prenatal testing decision tool had higher knowledge scores (79.5% compared with 64.9%, P<.001), were more likely to correctly estimate their risk of procedure-related miscarriage (64.9% compared with 48.1%, P=.002) and carrying a Down syndrome-affected fetus (63.5% compared with 15.1%, P<.001), were more satisfied with the intervention (P<.001), and had less decision uncertainty (P<.001) than controls after viewing the intervention. Most of these differences persisted over time. Among women aged at least 35 years, the interactive prenatal testing decision tool viewers who were originally less inclined to undergo invasive testing were ultimately more likely than similarly inclined controls to have amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (44.8% compared with 29.2%), whereas those who were originally more inclined to undergo an invasive procedure ultimately were less likely than similarly inclined controls to have a diagnostic procedure (84.6% compared with 94.9%; P=.015 for interaction).
CONCLUSION: Using an interactive prenatal testing decision tool results in more informed prenatal genetic testing decisions than viewing standard educational booklets. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00686062 LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19104360     DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31818e7ec4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  35 in total

1.  Triaging patients at risk of influenza using a patient portal.

Authors:  S Trent Rosenbloom; Titus L Daniels; Thomas R Talbot; Taylor McClain; Robert Hennes; Shane Stenner; Sue Muse; Jim Jirjis; Gretchen Purcell Jackson
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2011-12-01       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  Race/Ethnicity and pregnancy decision making: the role of fatalism and subjective social standing.

Authors:  Allison S Bryant; Sanae Nakagawa; Steven E Gregorich; Miriam Kuppermann
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 2.681

Review 3.  Measuring informed choice in population-based reproductive genetic screening: a systematic review.

Authors:  Alice Grace Ames; Sylvia Ann Metcalfe; Alison Dalton Archibald; Rony Emily Duncan; Jon Emery
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-05-21       Impact factor: 4.246

4.  Genetic testing likelihood: the impact of abortion views and quality of life information on women's decisions.

Authors:  Jessica L Wilson; Gail M Ferguson; Judith M Thorn
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2010-11-06       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  The effect of a decision aid on informed decision-making in the era of non-invasive prenatal testing: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Lean Beulen; Michelle van den Berg; Brigitte Hw Faas; Ilse Feenstra; Michiel Hageman; John Mg van Vugt; Mireille N Bekker
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2016-05-18       Impact factor: 4.246

6.  It's complicated - Factors predicting decisional conflict in prenatal diagnostic testing.

Authors:  Cécile Muller; Linda D Cameron
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2015-04-13       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  The Genomics ADvISER: development and usability testing of a decision aid for the selection of incidental sequencing results.

Authors:  Yvonne Bombard; Marc Clausen; Chloe Mighton; Lindsay Carlsson; Selina Casalino; Emily Glogowski; Kasmintan Schrader; Michael Evans; Adena Scheer; Nancy Baxter; Jada G Hamilton; Jordan Lerner-Ellis; Kenneth Offit; Mark Robson; Andreas Laupacis
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-04-27       Impact factor: 4.246

8.  A randomized trial of a prenatal genetic testing interactive computerized information aid.

Authors:  Lynn M Yee; Michael Wolf; Rebecca Mullen; Ashley R Bergeron; Stacy Cooper Bailey; Robert Levine; William A Grobman
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2014-03-18       Impact factor: 3.050

9.  Spanish- and English-Speaking Pregnant Women's Views on cfDNA and Other Prenatal Screening: Practical and Ethical Reflections.

Authors:  Erin Floyd; Megan A Allyse; Marsha Michie
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 2.537

10.  Effect of enhanced information, values clarification, and removal of financial barriers on use of prenatal genetic testing: a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Miriam Kuppermann; Sherri Pena; Judith T Bishop; Sanae Nakagawa; Steven E Gregorich; Anita Sit; Juan Vargas; Aaron B Caughey; Susan Sykes; Lasha Pierce; Mary E Norton
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014-09-24       Impact factor: 56.272

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.