MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7033026847

Prenatal Care Providers’ Experience With Pre-test Counselling for NIPT in Ontario: Counselling Challenges and Support Required

2022· article· en· W7033026847 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical and Chemical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrenatal careFocus groupGrounded theoryHealth careConstructivist grounded theoryChristian ministryGenetic counselingTest (biology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is a prenatal test that has experienced unprecedented commercial development and transformed prenatal care. The Ontario Ministry of Health presently funds NIPT as a first-tier prenatal screening option for high-risk singleton pregnancies and all twin pregnancies. Individuals who do not qualify for public funding or would like to screen for additional conditions can pay for NIPT privately, starting at approximately $495-$550 (CA) for baseline panels. Prenatal care providers such as family physicians, maternal-fetal-medicine specialists, obstetrician-gynaecologists, residents, midwives and registered nurses have an increasingly important role in offering NIPT in Ontario. Although these healthcare professionals do not have a specific genetic focus to their practice, little research exists exploring their experience of being at the forefront of counselling for this technology. This dissertation explores how these prenatal care providers in Ontario provide counselling for NIPT within their clinical practice.\nCharmaz’s constructivist grounded theory methodology was used to explore how prenatal care providers have enacted the process of prenatal pre-test counselling since the introduction of NIPT in Ontario. A total of 19 providers who encounter NIPT professionally in the Ontario cities of London, Hamilton, Toronto and Kingston participated in this study. The resulting theoretical model describes how providers experience pre-test counselling considerations for NIPT, including challenges, ethical considerations, and patient engagement in decision-making. To address these issues and effectively counsel patients about this expanding technology requires ongoing education, support and resources.\nFindings suggest practical, educational, and ethical inequalities between current NIPT panel options and prenatal care providers’ comfort and ability to provide pre-test counselling. Prenatal care providers require ongoing guidance and support as their role in prenatal screening is shifting to involve more complex counselling for NIPT. It is also essential to be proactive and develop supportive strategies to help providers navigate this technology's rapid expansion in the future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)Same topicBiomedical and Chemical ResearchFrench-language works237,207