Literature DB >> 25644120

Women's and healthcare professionals' preferences for prenatal testing: a discrete choice experiment.

Lean Beulen1, Janneke P C Grutters2, Brigitte H W Faas3, Ilse Feenstra3, Hans Groenewoud2, John M G van Vugt1, Mireille N Bekker1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates pregnant women's and healthcare professionals' preferences regarding specific prenatal screening and diagnostic test characteristics.
METHOD: A discrete choice experiment was developed to assess preferences for prenatal tests that differed in seven attributes: minimal gestational age, time to test results, level of information, detection rate, false positive rate, miscarriage risk and costs.
RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 596 (70.2%) pregnant women and 297 (51.7%) healthcare professionals, of whom 507 (85.1%) and 283 (95.3%), respectively, were included in further analyses as their choice behavior indicated prenatal testing was an option to them. Comparison of results showed differences in relative importance attached to attributes, further reflected by differences in willingness to trade between attributes. Pregnant women are willing to accept a less accurate test to obtain more information on fetal chromosomal status or to exclude the risk of procedure-related miscarriage. Healthcare professionals consider level of information and miscarriage risk to be most important as well but put more emphasis on timing and accuracy.
CONCLUSION: Pregnant women and healthcare professionals differ significantly in their preferences regarding prenatal test characteristics. Healthcare professionals should take these differences into consideration when counseling pregnant women on prenatal testing.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25644120     DOI: 10.1002/pd.4571

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prenat Diagn        ISSN: 0197-3851            Impact factor:   3.050


  16 in total

1.  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

2.  A Hierarchical Bayes Approach to Modeling Heterogeneity in Discrete Choice Experiments: An Application to Public Preferences for Prenatal Screening.

Authors:  Tima Mohammadi; Wei Zhang; Julie Sou; Sylvie Langlois; Sarah Munro; Aslam H Anis
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  The Impact of Reproductive Issues on Preferences of Women with Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis for Disease-Modifying Treatments.

Authors:  Edward J D Webb; David Meads; Ieva Eskytė; Helen L Ford; Hilary L Bekker; Jeremy Chataway; George Pepper; Joachim Marti; Yasmina Okan; Sue H Pavitt; Klaus Schmierer; Ana Manzano
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  Evaluation of preferences of women and healthcare professionals in Singapore for implementation of noninvasive prenatal testing for Down syndrome.

Authors:  Angela Natalie Barrett; Henna Vishal Advani; Lyn S Chitty; Lin Lin Su; Arijit Biswas; Wei Ching Tan; Melissa Hill; Mahesh Choolani
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 1.858

5.  Preferences for prenatal diagnosis of sickle-cell disorder: A discrete choice experiment comparing potential service users and health-care providers.

Authors:  Melissa Hill; Eugene Oteng-Ntim; Frida Forya; Mary Petrou; Stephen Morris; Lyn S Chitty
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2017-05-15       Impact factor: 3.377

6.  Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future.

Authors:  Vikas Soekhai; Esther W de Bekker-Grob; Alan R Ellis; Caroline M Vass
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Preferences for prenatal tests for Down syndrome: an international comparison of the views of pregnant women and health professionals.

Authors:  Melissa Hill; Jo-Ann Johnson; Sylvie Langlois; Hyun Lee; Stephanie Winsor; Brigid Dineley; Marisa Horniachek; Faustina Lalatta; Luisa Ronzoni; Angela N Barrett; Henna V Advani; Mahesh Choolani; Ron Rabinowitz; Eva Pajkrt; Rachèl V van Schendel; Lidewij Henneman; Wieke Rommers; Caterina M Bilardo; Paula Rendeiro; Maria João Ribeiro; José Rocha; Ida Charlotte Bay Lund; Olav B Petersen; Naja Becher; Ida Vogel; Vigdis Stefánsdottir; Sigrun Ingvarsdottir; Helga Gottfredsdottir; Stephen Morris; Lyn S Chitty
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-11-18       Impact factor: 4.246

8.  Positive Attitudes towards Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) in a Swedish Cohort of 1,003 Pregnant Women.

Authors:  Ellika Sahlin; Magnus Nordenskjöld; Peter Gustavsson; Josephine Wincent; Susanne Georgsson; Erik Iwarsson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-05-19       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Clinical utility of non-invasive prenatal testing in pregnancies with ultrasound anomalies.

Authors:  L Beulen; B H W Faas; I Feenstra; J M G van Vugt; M N Bekker
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 7.299

Review 10.  Do patients and health care providers have discordant preferences about which aspects of treatments matter most? Evidence from a systematic review of discrete choice experiments.

Authors:  Mark Harrison; Katherine Milbers; Marie Hudson; Nick Bansback
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-05-17       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.