Decisional needs assessment regarding Down syndrome prenatal testing: a systematic review of the perceptions of women, their partners and health professionals
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify decisional needs of women, their partners and health professionals regarding prenatal testing for Down syndrome through a systematic review. METHODS: Articles reporting original data from real clinical situations on sources of difficulty and/or ease in making decisions regarding prenatal testing for Down syndrome were selected. Data were extracted using a taxonomy adapted from the Ottawa Decision-Support Framework and the quality of the studies was assessed using Qualsyst validated tools. RESULTS: In all 40 publications covering 32 unique studies were included. The majority concerned women. The most often reported sources of difficulty for decision-making in women were pressure from others, emotions and lack of information; in partners, emotion; in health professionals, lack of information, length of consultation, and personal values. The most important sources of ease were, in women, personal values, understanding and confidence in the medical system; in partners, personal values, information from external sources, and income; in health professionals, peer support and scientific meetings. CONCLUSION: Interventions regarding a decision about prenatal testing for Down syndrome should address many decisional needs, which may indeed vary among the parties involved, whether women, their partners or health professionals. Very little is known about the decisional needs of partners and health professionals.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it