A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Influence of Prenatal Counseling on the Attitudes and Preferences Toward Invasive Prenatal Testing Among Women in Their First Trimester of Pregnancy (INVASIVE)

The Role of Preprocedure Genetic Counseling in Pregnancies Interrupted for Fetal Abnormalities

OBJECTIVE

Congenital birth defects affect 3 to 5% of pregnancies. Genetic counseling can help patients navigate the testing process and understand results. The study objective was to identify predictors and utility of genetic counseling at the time of pregnancy termination. Additionally, we aimed to see what proportion of patients would benefit from additional testing based on the results of the genetic testing.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort review of all terminations performed for fetal anomalies by an academic center from July 2016 to May 2020. Indications were stratified by abnormal serum screening or types of abnormal ultrasound findings. Data were abstracted regarding uptake of genetic counseling and testing results. Abnormal results that warranted additional testing regarding recurrence risks were noted. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of receipt of genetic counseling and testing.

RESULTS

Of 387 patients, 57% (n = 220) received preprocedure genetic counseling and 43% (n = 167) did not. Among patients who received diagnostic testing, 62% (n = 194) had genetic counseling compared with 38% (n = 121) without counseling (adjusted odds ratio 2.46, 95% confidence interval [1.41-4.29], p < 0.001). Among the entire cohort, 38% (n = 148) had suspected aneuploidy based on serum screening. Of these, 89% (n = 132/148) had definitive testing, 92% (n = 122/132) confirming the aneuploidy. Among the other 68% (n = 239) with structural anomalies, 76% (n = 183) had diagnostic testing with 29% (n = 53) yielding an abnormal result. Among those fetuses with structural anomalies, 36% (n = 19/53) of genetic diagnoses warranted additional parental testing because of risk of recurrence compared with only 2% (n = 2/122) of patients with abnormal serum screening results alone.

CONCLUSION

Genetic counseling was associated with increased uptake of diagnostic testing, which yielded useful information and prompted additional testing. This is important for determining etiology and recurrence risk and should be offered to patients presenting for termination for fetal indications, as well as providing diagnostic closure for patients.

KEY POINTS

· Genetic counseling increases the uptake of diagnostic testing in patients with fetal anomalies.. · Patients with ultrasound anomalies received less diagnostic testing despite actionable results 36% of the time.. · Genetic testing is invaluable for recurrence risk counseling even if patients chose to terminate..

Exploring measurement tools used to assess knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of pregnant women toward prenatal screening: A systematic review

There is a lack of standardized measurement tools globally to assess knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of expecting women toward prenatal screening. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify reasons women pursue or decline prenatal screening and compare the strengths and limitations of available measurement tools used to assess pregnant women's perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes toward prenatal screening. This review followed the five-step York methodology by Arksey and O'Malley and incorporated recommendations from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis checklist for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results. The five steps consisted of: (1) identification of the research questions; (2) searching for relevant studies; (3) selection of studies relevant to the research questions; (4) data charting; and (5) collation, summarization, and reporting of results. Four online databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) were selected after the librarian's development of a detailed search strategy. The Rayyan platform was used between June 2023 and August 2023 to epitomize the articles produced from our search. A total of 68 eligible studies were included in the analysis. The top five major reasons for declining prenatal screening uptake included (1) being unsure of the risk of prenatal screening and harm to the baby or miscarriage (n = 15), (2) not considering action such as termination of pregnancy for prenatal screening to be considered as necessary (n = 14), (3) high cost (n = 12), (4) lack of knowledge about testing procedures and being anxious about the test (n = 10), and (5) being worried about probability of false negative or false positive results (n = 6). Only 32 studies utilized scientifically validated instruments. Difficulties in capturing representative, adequately sized samples inclusive of diverse ethnicities and demographics were pervasive. Findings highlight the need for rigorous validation of research measurement methodologies to ensure the accuracy and applicability of resulting data regarding the assessment of prenatal screening perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes across diverse female populations.Registration: N/A.

Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a healthcare provider to help patients prepare to actively participate in making a health decision. 'Healthcare providers' are considered to be all people who are engaged in actions whose primary intent is to protect and improve health (e.g. nurses, doctors, pharmacists, social workers, health support workers such as peer health workers). Little is known about the effectiveness of decision coaching.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of decision coaching (I) for people facing healthcare decisions for themselves or a family member (P) compared to (C) usual care or evidence-based intervention only, on outcomes (O) related to preparation for decision making, decisional needs and potential adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Nursing and Allied Health Source (ProQuest), and Web of Science from database inception to June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was provided to adults or children preparing to make a treatment or screening healthcare decision for themselves or a family member. Decision coaching was defined as: a) delivered individually by a healthcare provider who is trained or using a protocol; and b) providing non-directive support and preparing an adult or child to participate in a healthcare decision. Comparisons included usual care or an alternate intervention. There were no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data on characteristics of the intervention(s) and outcomes. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach consensus. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesised results using a random-effects model. If more than one study measured the same outcome using different tools, we used a random-effects model to calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. We presented outcomes in summary of findings tables and applied GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Out of 12,984 citations screened, we included 28 studies of decision coaching interventions alone or in combination with evidence-based information, involving 5509 adult participants (aged 18 to 85 years; 64% female, 52% white, 33% African-American/Black; 68% post-secondary education). The studies evaluated decision coaching used for a range of healthcare decisions (e.g. treatment decisions for cancer, menopause, mental illness, advancing kidney disease; screening decisions for cancer, genetic testing). Four of the 28 studies included three comparator arms.  For decision coaching compared with usual care (n = 4 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching compared with usual care improves any outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, knowledge, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.  For decision coaching compared with evidence-based information only (n = 4 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in knowledge (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.04; 3 studies, 406 participants). There is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in anxiety, compared with evidence-based information. We are uncertain if decision coaching compared with evidence-based information improves other outcomes (i.e. decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care (n = 17 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants may have improved knowledge (SMD 9.3, 95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1; 5 studies, 1073 participants). We are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care improves other outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only (n = 7 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only improves any outcomes (i.e. feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, knowledge, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Decision coaching may improve participants' knowledge when used with evidence-based information. Our findings do not indicate any significant adverse effects (e.g. decision regret, anxiety) with the use of decision coaching. It is not possible to establish strong conclusions for other outcomes. It is unclear if decision coaching always needs to be paired with evidence-informed information. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of decision coaching for a broader range of outcomes.