Reducing decisional conflict in decisions about prenatal genetic testing: the impact of a dyadic intervention at the start of prenatal care

Author:

Collart Christina1ORCID,Craighead Caitlin1ORCID,Yao Meng2ORCID,Rose Susannah3ORCID,Chien Edward K.1,Frankel Richard M.4ORCID,Coleridge Marissa15,Hu Bo2,Edmonds Brownsyne Tucker6,Ranzini Angela C.7ORCID,Farrell Ruth M.158

Affiliation:

1. Obstetrics and Gynecology Institute , Cleveland Clinic , Cleveland , OH , USA

2. Quantitative Health Sciences , Cleveland Clinic , Cleveland , OH , USA

3. Department of Biomedical Informatics and Center for Biomedical Ethics and Society , Vanderbilt University Medical Center , Nashville , TN , USA

4. Lerner College of Medicine , Cleveland Clinic , Cleveland , OH , USA

5. Genomic Medicine Institute , Cleveland Clinic , Cleveland , OH , USA

6. Indiana University School of Medicine , 1772 Indiana University , Indianapolis , IN , USA

7. Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology , The MetroHealth System , Cleveland , OH , USA

8. Center for Bioethics, Clinical Transformation , Cleveland Clinic , Cleveland , OH , USA

Abstract

Abstract Objectives Decisional conflict and regret about prenatal genetic screening and diagnostic tests may have important consequences in the current pregnancy and for future reproductive decisions. Identifying mechanisms that reduce conflict associated with the decision to use or decline these options is necessary for optimal patient counseling. Methods We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial of a shared decision-making tool (NEST) at the beginning of prenatal care. Enrolled patients completed follow-up surveys at the time of testing (QTT) and in the second–third trimester (QFF), including the Decision Conflict Scale (DCS). Total DCS scores were analyzed using a multivariate linear mixed-effect model. Results Of the total number of participants (n=502) enrolled, 449 completed the QTT and QFF surveys. The mean age of participants was 31.6±3.8, with most parous at the time of study participation (n=321; 71.7 %). Both the NEST (the intervention) and control groups had lower median total DCS scores at QFF (NEST 13.3 [1.7, 25.0] vs. control 16.7 [1.7, 25.0]; p=0.24) compared to QTT (NEST 20.8 [5.0, 25.0] vs. control 18.3 [3.3, 26.7]; p=0.89). Participants exposed to NEST had lower decisional conflict at QFF compared to control (β −3.889; [CI −7.341, −0.437]; p=0.027). Conclusions Using a shared decision-making tool at the start of prenatal care decreased decisional conflict regarding prenatal genetic testing. Such interventions have the potential to provide an important form of decision-making support for patients facing the unique type of complex and preference-based choices about the use of prenatal genetic tests.

Funder

National Human Genome Research Institute

Publisher

Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Reference39 articles.

1. Almli, LM, Ely, DM, Ailes, EC, Abouk, R, Grosse, SD, Isenburg, JL, et al.. Infant mortality attributable to birth defects — United States, 2003–2017. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6902a1.

2. Xu, J, Murphy, SL, Kochanek, KD, Bastian, BA. Division of vital statistics. Deaths: final data for 2013. In:National vital statistics reports: from the centers for disease control and prevention, national center for health statistics. Natl Vital Stat Rep.; 2016, vol 62:1–119 pp.

3. Berg, JW, Appelbaum, PS, Lidz, CW, Parker, LS. Informed consent: legal theory and clinical practice. Oxford University Press; 2001.

4. Faden, RR, Beauchamp, TL. A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford University Press; 1986.

5. Tymitz, K, Lidor, A, Lidor, A. The Institute of medicine: crossing the quality chasm. In: Tichansky, D, Morton, J, Jones, D, editors. The SAGES manual of quality, outcomes and patient safety. Boston, MA: Springer; 2011.

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3