Patient decision‐making and the role of the prenatal genetic counselor: An exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite much theory about how genetic counseling facilitates prenatal decision-making, there are limited data regarding patients' perceptions of the process and the role of the genetic counselor (GC). Our aim in this study was to explore patients' perceptions of their prenatal genetic counseling session, with a focus on their relationship with their GC and how factors inside and outside the session influenced their decision-making about amniocentesis. We performed a qualitative study with patients who had seen a GC after maternal serum screening revealed an increased risk for aneuploidy. Semistructured interviews were transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using a constant comparative method. To complement and triangulate with these data, we used a secondary quantitative measure-the 6-item Satisfaction With Decision-making (SWD) scale, and questionnaires completed by participants' GCs. Eleven patients participated and four predominant themes emerged from our data: (1) being unprepared; (2) recognizing responsibility for decision-making; (3) the burden of responsibility; and (4) the impact of support through affirmation. Despite the underlying tension within these themes, patients reported high satisfaction with their decisions (SWD mean score = 28.5/30, range: 26-30). Patients perceived their GCs to be nonbiased yet supportive in the decision-making process. Patients described feeling affirmed, but not swayed in their decision.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".