Literature DB >> 7580707

A randomised trial of three methods of giving information about prenatal testing.

J G Thornton1, J Hewison, R J Lilford, A Vail.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To test the effect of extra non-directive information about prenatal testing, given individually or in a class.
SETTING: Antenatal clinics in a district general hospital and a university hospital.
DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial; participants allocated to control group or offer of extra information individually or in class.
SUBJECTS: 1691 women booking antenatal care before 15 weeks' gestation.
INTERVENTIONS: All participants received the usual information about prenatal tests from hospital staff. Individual participants were offered a separate session with a research midwife in which prenatal screening was described in detail. Class participants were offered the same extra information in an early prenatal class. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Attendance at extra information sessions; uptake rates of prenatal tests; levels of anxiety, understanding, and satisfaction with decisions.
RESULTS: Attendance at classes was lower than at individual sessions (adjusted odds ratio 0.45; 95% confidence interval 0.35 to 0.58). Ultrasonography was almost universally accepted (99%) and was not affected by either intervention. Uptake of cystic fibrosis testing, high in controls (79%), was lowered in the individual group (0.44; 0.20 to 0.97) and classes (0.39; 0.18 to 0.86). Uptake of screening for Down's syndrome, already low (34%) in controls, was not further depressed by extra information in classes (0.99; 0.70 to 1.39) and was slightly higher in the individual group (1.45; 1.04 to 2.02). Women offered extra information had improved understanding and were more satisfied with information received; satisfaction with decisions about prenatal testing was unchanged. The offer of individual information reduced anxiety later in pregnancy.
CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasonography is valued for non-medical reasons and chosen even by fully informed people who eschew prenatal diagnosis. The offer of extra information has no overall adverse effects on anxiety and reduces uptake of blood tests when background uptake rate is high (but not when it is already low). High uptake of prenatal blood tests suggests compliant behaviour and need for more information.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7580707      PMCID: PMC2551055          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.311.7013.1127

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  18 in total

1.  Clinical experience with the triple test for Down's syndrome screening.

Authors:  J G Thornton; R S Cartmill; J Williams; S Holding; R J Lilford
Journal:  J Perinat Med       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 1.901

2.  Randomised trial of self hypnosis for analgesia in labour.

Authors:  R M Freeman; A J Macaulay; L Eve; G V Chamberlain; A V Bhat
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1986-03-08

3.  Development of a self-administered questionnaire to measure women's knowledge of prenatal screening and diagnostic tests.

Authors:  T M Marteau; M Johnston; M Plenicar; R W Shaw; J Slack
Journal:  J Psychosom Res       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 3.006

Review 4.  Psychological costs of screening.

Authors:  T M Marteau
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1989-08-26

5.  The impact of prenatal screening and diagnostic testing upon the cognitions, emotions and behaviour of pregnant women.

Authors:  T M Marteau; M Johnston; R W Shaw; S Michie; J Kidd; M New
Journal:  J Psychosom Res       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 3.006

6.  Consumer-oriented studies in relation to prenatal screening tests.

Authors:  M Reid
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  1988-04       Impact factor: 2.435

7.  Effects of ultrasound feedback on pregnancy anxiety, fetal activity, and neonatal outcome.

Authors:  T Field; D Sandberg; T A Quetel; R Garcia; M Rosario
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1985-10       Impact factor: 7.661

8.  The hospital anxiety and depression scale.

Authors:  A S Zigmond; R P Snaith
Journal:  Acta Psychiatr Scand       Date:  1983-06       Impact factor: 6.392

9.  What do patients value? Willingness to pay for ultrasound in normal pregnancy.

Authors:  D M Berwick; M C Weinstein
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1985-07       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Information control and the exercise of power in the obstetrical encounter.

Authors:  M C Shapiro; J M Najman; A Chang; J D Keeping; J Morrison; J S Western
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 4.634

View more
  20 in total

Review 1.  Increasing informed uptake and non-uptake of screening: evidence from a systematic review.

Authors:  R G Jepson; C A Forbes; A J Sowden; R A Lewis
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  Randomised controlled trial comparing effectiveness of touch screen system with leaflet for providing women with information on prenatal tests.

Authors:  W Graham; P Smith; A Kamal; A Fitzmaurice; N Smith; N Hamilton
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-01-15

Review 3.  Adjusting for treatment refusal in rationing decisions.

Authors:  Richard Lilford; Alan Girling; Andrew Stevens; Abdullah Almasri; Mohammed A Mohammed; David Braunholtz
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-03-04

4.  Explaining Mendelian inheritance in genetic consultations: an IPR study of counselor and counselee experiences.

Authors:  Theodora Gale; Sara Pasalodos-Sanchez; Lauren Kerzin-Storrar; Georgina Hall; Rhona MacLeod
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2010-01-05       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 5.  Improving communication between health professionals and women in maternity care: a structured review.

Authors:  Rachel E Rowe; Jo Garcia; Alison J Macfarlane; Leslie L Davidson
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 6.  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

7.  Development and Evaluation of a Decision Aid About Prenatal Testing for Women of Advanced Maternal Age.

Authors:  E R Drake; L Engler-Todd; A M O'Connor; L C Surh; A Hunter
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  Update and Review: Maternal Serum Screening.

Authors:  K E Ormond
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 2.537

9.  Information about prenatal testing does not necessarily increase uptake.

Authors:  W M Moore
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-02-24

Review 10.  On what basis should the effectiveness of decision aids be judged?

Authors:  Andrew D M Kennedy
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.377

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.