Does an Educational Video for Aneuploidy Screening Improve Informed Choice Among Pregnant Women? A Randomised Controlled Trial

Overview

Journal Prenat Diagn

Publisher Wiley

Specialty Gynecology & Obstetrics

Date 2022 Dec 22

PMID 36550063

Authors

Karen Mei Xian Lim

Celine Lewis

Hung Chew Wong

Glenda Sze Ling Chong

Arundhati Gosavi

Mahesh Arjandas Choolani

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Poor knowledge and the lack of deliberation have been cited as reasons for women making uninformed choices about aneuploidy screening. Adequate pre-test counselling is of particular importance where non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS) is being increasingly offered as a primary screening test.

Design: Women attending the antenatal clinic with a singleton pregnancy below 14 weeks were randomised to receive routine counselling or the intervention-a 16-min educational video on aneuploidy screening before their consult. The primary outcome, rate of informed choice, was assessed using an adapted multidimensional measure of informed choice questionnaire, where informed choice was defined as good knowledge and value-consistent behaviour. Secondary outcomes included informed choice with deliberation, decisional conflict and anxiety.

Results: Two hundred and eighty-six women were recruited. 69.8% of women in the intervention group made an informed choice compared with 53.6% in the control group (Risk Ratio [RR] 1.30, p = 0.014). A significantly higher number of women in the intervention group had good knowledge compared to controls (81% vs. 60.9%; RR 1.33, p = 0.001). Decisional conflict did not differ between groups, but women in the intervention group had higher anxiety scores (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: The study intervention was effective in helping women make informed choice. Qualitative studies to determine the reason for increased anxiety are needed.

Trial Registration: Trial registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; Identifier: NCT05492981.

Citing Articles

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

Sacca L, Zerrouki Y, Burgoa S, Okwaraji G, Li A, Arshad S Womens Health (Lond). 2024; 20:17455057241273557.

PMID: 39206551 PMC: 11363050. DOI: 10.1177/17455057241273557.

Effects of an animated educational video on knowledge of cell-free DNA screening among Thai pregnant women: a randomized control trial.

Nintao N, Manonai J, Wattanayingcharoenchai R, Bumrungphuet S, Hansahiranwadee W, Dulyaphat W BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023; 23(1):853.

PMID: 38082376 PMC: 10714566. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-023-06170-8.

Does an educational video for aneuploidy screening improve informed choice among pregnant women? A randomised controlled trial.

Lim K, Lewis C, Wong H, Chong G, Gosavi A, Choolani M Prenat Diagn. 2022; 43(1):42-50.

PMID: 36550063 PMC: 10107633. DOI: 10.1002/pd.6279.

References

Hartwig T, Miltoft C, Ingvoldstad Malmgren C, Tabor A, Jorgensen F . High risk-What's next? A survey study on decisional conflict, regret, and satisfaction among high-risk pregnant women making choices about further prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy. Prenat Diagn. 2019; 39(8):635-642. DOI: 10.1002/pd.5476. View

Nagle C, Gunn J, Bell R, Lewis S, Meiser B, Metcalfe S . Use of a decision aid for prenatal testing of fetal abnormalities to improve women's informed decision making: a cluster randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN22532458]. BJOG. 2008; 115(3):339-47. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01576.x. View

Horsting J, Dlouhy S, Hanson K, Quaid K, Bai S, Hines K . Genetic counselors' experience with cell-free fetal DNA testing as a prenatal screening option for aneuploidy. J Genet Couns. 2013; 23(3):377-400. DOI: 10.1007/s10897-013-9673-4. View

Lim K, Lewis C, Wong H, Chong G, Gosavi A, Choolani M . Does an educational video for aneuploidy screening improve informed choice among pregnant women? A randomised controlled trial. Prenat Diagn. 2022; 43(1):42-50. PMC: 10107633. DOI: 10.1002/pd.6279. View

Gil M, Accurti V, Santacruz B, Plana M, Nicolaides K . Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for aneuploidies: updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 50(3):302-314. DOI: 10.1002/uog.17484. View

Gourounti K, Sandall J . Do pregnant women in Greece make informed choices about antenatal screening for Down's syndrome? A questionnaire survey. Midwifery. 2007; 24(2):153-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2006.09.001. View

Bekker H, Hewison J, Thornton J . Applying decision analysis to facilitate informed decision making about prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome: a randomised controlled trial. Prenat Diagn. 2004; 24(4):265-75. DOI: 10.1002/pd.851. View

Barrett A, Advani H, Chitty L, Su L, Biswas A, Tan W . Evaluation of preferences of women and healthcare professionals in Singapore for implementation of noninvasive prenatal testing for Down syndrome. Singapore Med J. 2016; 58(6):298-310. PMC: 5474525. DOI: 10.11622/smedj.2016114. View

van den Berg M, Timmermans D, Ten Kate L, van Vugt J, van der Wal G . Informed decision making in the context of prenatal screening. Patient Educ Couns. 2005; 63(1-2):110-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.09.007. View

10.

Mulla B, Chang O, Modest A, Hacker M, Marchand K, OBrien K . Improving Patient Knowledge of Aneuploidy Testing Using an Educational Video: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 132(2):445-452. PMC: 6059992. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002742. View

11.

Allyse M, Minear M, Berson E, Sridhar S, Rote M, Hung A . Non-invasive prenatal testing: a review of international implementation and challenges. Int J Womens Health. 2015; 7:113-26. PMC: 4303457. DOI: 10.2147/IJWH.S67124. View

12.

Beulen L, van den Berg M, Faas B, Feenstra I, Hageman M, van Vugt J . The effect of a decision aid on informed decision-making in the era of non-invasive prenatal testing: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016; 24(10):1409-16. PMC: 5027684. DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2016.39. View

13.

Press N, Browner C . Why women say yes to prenatal diagnosis. Soc Sci Med. 1997; 45(7):979-89. DOI: 10.1016/s0277-9536(97)00011-7. View

14.

Skjoth M, Draborg E, Pedersen C, Hansen H, Lamont R, Jorgensen J . Providing information about prenatal screening for Down syndrome: a systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014; 94(2):125-32. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.12543. View

15.

Schoonen H, Van Agt H, Essink-Bot M, Wildschut H, Steegers E, de Koning H . Informed decision-making in prenatal screening for Down's syndrome: what knowledge is relevant?. Patient Educ Couns. 2010; 84(2):265-70. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.07.037. View

16.

OConnor A . Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making. 1995; 15(1):25-30. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9501500105. View

17.

Dormandy E, Michie S, Hooper R, Marteau T . Informed choice in antenatal Down syndrome screening: a cluster-randomised trial of combined versus separate visit testing. Patient Educ Couns. 2006; 61(1):56-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.02.006. View

18.

Pallett A, Nguyen B, Klein N, Phippen N, Miller C, Barnett J . A randomized controlled trial to determine whether a video presentation improves informed consent for hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 219(3):277.e1-277.e7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.06.016. View

19.

Rowe H, Fisher J, Quinlivan J . Are pregnant Australian women well informed about prenatal genetic screening? A systematic investigation using the Multidimensional Measure of Informed Choice. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006; 46(5):433-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2006.00630.x. View

20.

Hui L, Muggli E, Halliday J . Population-based trends in prenatal screening and diagnosis for aneuploidy: a retrospective analysis of 38 years of state-wide data. BJOG. 2015; 123(1):90-7. DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.13488. View