Author
Listed:
- Christina Collart
(Obstetrics & Gynecology Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA)
- Caitlin Craighead
(Obstetrics & Gynecology Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA)
- Meng Yao
(Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA)
- Edward K. Chien
(Obstetrics & Gynecology Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA)
- Susannah Rose
(Experience Safety, Quality and Patient Experience, Clinical Transformation, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA)
- Richard M. Frankel
(Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA)
- Marissa Coleridge
(Obstetrics & Gynecology Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
Genomic Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland OH, USA)
- Bo Hu
(Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA)
- Brownsyne Tucker Edmonds
(Indiana University School of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis IN, USA)
- Angela C. Ranzini
(Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The MetroHealth System, Cleveland, OH, USA)
- Ruth M. Farrell
(Obstetrics & Gynecology Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
Genomic Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland OH, USA
Center for Bioethics, Clinical Transformation, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland OH, USA)
Abstract
Purpose Prenatal genetic screens and diagnostic tests are vital components of prenatal care. The first prenatal visit is a critical time in the decision-making process when patients decide whether to use these tests in addition to address a series of other essential prenatal care aspects. We conducted this study to examine the role of a shared decision-making (SDM) instrument to support these discussions. Methods We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial of patients allocated to an SDM tool or usual care at their first prenatal visit. Participants completed a baseline survey to measure decision-making needs and preferences. Direct observation was conducted and analyzed using the OPTION scale to measure SDM during prenatal genetic testing discussions. Results Levels of SDM were similar across groups ( P  = 0.081). The highest levels of SDM were observed during screening test discussions (NEST 2.4 ± 0.9 v. control 2.6 ± 1.0). Lowest levels were observed in discussions about patients’ preference for risk versus diagnostic information (NEST 1.0 ± 1.1 v. control 1.2 ± 1.3). Conclusion Study findings demonstrate the need for targeted patient-focused and provider-focused efforts to improve SDM to enhance patients’ informed decision making about these options. Importantly, patients’ baseline knowledge and attitudes need to be considered given that patients with less knowledge may need more carefully crafted communication. Highlights Choices about whether, when, and how to use prenatal genetic tests are highly preference-based decisions, with patients’ baseline attitudes about these options as a major driver in health care discussions. The decision-making process is also shaped by patient preferences regarding a shared or informed decision-making process for medical decisions that are highly personal and have significant ramifications for obstetric outcomes. There is a need to develop targeted efforts to improve decision making and enhance patients’ ability to make informed decisions about prenatal genetic tests in early pregnancy.
Suggested Citation
Christina Collart & Caitlin Craighead & Meng Yao & Edward K. Chien & Susannah Rose & Richard M. Frankel & Marissa Coleridge & Bo Hu & Brownsyne Tucker Edmonds & Angela C. Ranzini & Ruth M. Farrell, 2024.
"Identifying Strategies to Improve Shared Decision Making for Pregnant Patients’ Decisions about Prenatal Genetic Screens and Diagnostic Tests,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(6), pages 689-704, August.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:6:p:689-704
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X241259016
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:6:p:689-704. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.