Prenatal screening for Down syndrome: a survey of willingness in women and family physicians to engage in shared decision‐making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the willingness of women and their family physicians (FPs) to engage in shared decision-making (SDM) as regards prenatal Down-syndrome screening and the factors that might influence their willingness to do so. METHODS: We conducted a survey of participants in Québec City, Canada, using the theory of planned behavior. We used a general linear model and multilevel approach that took the fact that some women consulted the same FP into account. RESULTS: This study comprised 109 pregnant women and 41 FPs. On a scale of - 3 to + 3, the pregnant women's and FPs' response scores were, respectively, 2.11 ± 1.38 and 2.66 ± 0.40. In women, attitude, significant others, self-efficacy, perceived moral correctness, and their FP's attitude influenced their willingness to engage in SDM. However, women without a post-secondary education were less likely to engage in SDM than women with a post-secondary education, mostly because the former lacked a sense of self-efficacy. In FPs, only attitude and significant others influenced their willingness to engage in SDM. CONCLUSION: Overall, the women and their FPs wished to engage in SDM as regards prenatal Down-syndrome screening. Only a few factors influenced this desire which therefore may be modifiable.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".