Health care professionals’ attitudes about pregnancy termination for different fetal anomalies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health care professionals (HCPs) may be involved in counselling women after an antenatal diagnosis of various fetal anomalies. Many pregnant women consider termination of pregnancy (TOP) after antenatal diagnosis of various fetal anomalies. Little is known, however, about the attitudes of HCPs regarding TOP for specific antenatal diagnoses. OBJECTIVE: To determine the attitudes and opinions of HCPs in maternal and child health regarding TOP for fetal anomalies of varying severity. METHODS: AN ANONYMOUS QUESTIONNAIRE WAS DISTRIBUTED TO FOUR GROUPS OF HCPS: obstetric residents; paediatric residents; delivery room nurses; and neonatal intensive care nurses. Respondents were asked about TOP if they or their spouse were to receive an antenatal diagnosis for five prenatally diagnosed conditions: trisomy 21; trisomy 18; cleft lip and palate; Turner syndrome; and hypoplastic left heart syndrome. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty HCPs answered the questionnaire (90% response rate). Ten per cent of respondents would not consider TOP under any of the circumstances described. Among those who would consider TOP, they were most likely to do so for trisomy 18 and least likely for cleft lip and palate, and fairly evenly divided among the remaining three conditions (hypoplastic left heart syndrome [65%], trisomy 21 [56%] and Turner syndrome [37%]). Paediatric residents were less likely to choose TOP than other groups and obstetrics residents were most likely. CONCLUSIONS: Attitudes of HCPs toward TOP vary according to prenatally identified condition and professional group. More rigorous analysis should be performed regarding the process of counselling and the impact of HCPs beliefs on parental decisions.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".