Are pregnant Australian women well informed about prenatal genetic screening? A systematic investigation using the Multidimensional Measure of Informed Choice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ethical practice requires that decisions to participate in medical care be well informed. Investigations into prenatal genetic screening for Down syndrome have assessed women's knowledge but have not examined whether being well informed about the potential consequences of screening, such as subsequent diagnostic testing, diagnosis and termination, is associated with psychological distress for women. AIMS: To assess informed choice to participate in second trimester maternal serum screening (2MSS) in pregnant women using a validated measure and to compare anxiety levels in women who were well informed versus poorly informed. METHODS: A prospective cohort study where pregnant women completed the Multidimensional Measure of Informed Choice and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale immediately prior to the offer of 2MSS. Follow-up questionnaires assessing psychological symptomatology were completed at 20 and 30 weeks gestation. RESULTS: Only 37% of decisions were informed; those who participated in screening were more likely to have made an informed decision than those who did not (P = 0.01); 31% did not know that miscarriage was a possible consequence of diagnostic testing subsequent to an increased risk screening result and only 62% correctly identified that termination of pregnancy would be offered if Down syndrome were to be diagnosed. Short-term anxiety levels in those who were well informed were not significantly different from those who were poorly informed (P = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Health promotion strategies, which are readily applicable in clinical settings and address diverse learning needs and attitudes of pregnant women, are needed. The impact of antenatal screening on other dimensions of pregnancy psychology remains to be investigated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".