Maternal age-based prenatal screening for chromosomal disorders: attitudes of women and health care providers toward changes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore views of women and health care providers (HCPs) about the changing recommendations regarding maternal age-based prenatal screening. DESIGN: Mixed-methods design. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: A sample of women who had given birth within the previous 2 years and who had attended a family medicine centre, midwifery practice, or baby and mother wellness program (n = 42); and a random sample of family physicians (n = 1600), and all Ontario obstetricians (n = 694) and midwives (n = 334) who provided prenatal care. METHODS: We used focus groups (FGs) to explore women's views. Content analysis was used to uncover themes and delineate meaning. To explore HCPs' views, we conducted a cross-sectional self-completion survey. MAIN FINDINGS: All FG participants (42 women in 6 FGs) expressed the importance of individual choice of prenatal screening modality, regardless of age. They described their perception that society considers women older than 35 to be at high obstetric risk and raised concerns that change in the maternal age-related screening policy would require education. The HCP survey response rate was 40%. Results showed 24% of HCPs agreed that women of any age should be eligible for invasive diagnostic testing regardless of prenatal screening results; 15% agreed that the age for diagnostic testing should be increased to 40 years, 14% agreed that diagnostic testing should be reserved for women with positive prenatal screening results, and 45% agreed that prenatal screening should remain unchanged. CONCLUSION: Maternity care organizations have recommended that maternal age-based prenatal screening is no longer appropriate. Informed choice is of paramount importance to women and should be part of any change. Health care providers need to be engaged in and educated about any change to screening guidelines to offer women informed choices.
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 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".