A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effect of Standardized Video Education on Prenatal Genetic Testing Choices: Uptake of Genetic Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the use of a standardized prenatal genetic testing educational video and its effects on patient uptake of prenatal testing, patient knowledge, decisional conflict, and decisional regret. STUDY DESIGN: This was an Institutional Review Board-approved randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomized to intervention (standardized video education) or control (no video education). The video education group viewed a 5-minute educational video on genetic testing options, and the control group did not review the video. Both groups answered validated questionnaires to assess maternal knowledge (Maternal Serum Screening Knowledge Questionnaire [MSSK]), conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale [DCS]), and regret (Decisional Regret Scale [DRS]). The primary outcome was genetic testing uptake; secondary outcomes were knowledge-based test score, and level of decisional conflict and regret. RESULTS: < 0.001). CONCLUSION: We found that video education on prenatal genetic testing improved patients' knowledge, decreased testing and decisional conflict and regret regarding testing. This may indicate improved understanding of testing options and more informed decisions that align with their personal values and beliefs. This standardized video can be easily implemented in clinical practice to increase patient understanding and support decisions that align with patient's values. KEY POINTS: · A standardized educational video improves patient knowledge about prenatal testing options in pregnancy.. · Video education decreases testing and decisional conflict and decisional regret in pregnancy.. · A standardized educational video may be used in the clinical setting to educate patients on testing options and help them make informed decisions about testing..
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 | 0.001 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".