Papers

A randomised trial of three methods of giving information about prenatal testing

^a Institute of Epidemiology and Health Services Research, Leeds University, Leeds LS2 9LN, ^b Department of Psychology, Leeds University

Correspondence to: Dr Thornton.

Abstract

Objective: To test the effect of extra non-directive information about prenatal testing, given individually or in a class.
Setting: Antenatal clinics in a district general hospital and a university hospital.
Design: Randomised controlled trial; participants allocated to control group or offer of extra information individually or in class.
Subjects: 1691 women booking antenatal care before 15 weeks' gestation.
Interventions: All participants received the usual information about prenatal tests from hospital staff. Individual participants were offered a separate session with a research midwife in which prenatal screening was described in detail. Class participants were offered the same extra information in an early prenatal class.
Main outcome measures: Attendance at extra information sessions; uptake rates of prenatal tests; levels of anxiety, understanding, and satisfaction with decisions.
Results: Attendance at classes was lower than at individual sessions (adjusted odds ratio 0.45; 95% confidence interval 0.35 to 0.58). Ultrasonography was almost universally accepted (99%) and was not affected by either intervention. Uptake of cystic fibrosis testing, high in controls (79%), was lowered in the individual group (0.44; 0.20 to 0.97) and classes (0.39; 0.18 to 0.86). Uptake of screening for Down's syndrome, already low (34%) in controls, was not further depressed by extra information in classes (0.99; 0.70 to 1.39) and was slightly higher in the individual group (1.45; 1.04 to 2.02). Women offered extra information had improved understanding and were more satisfied with information received; satisfaction with decisions about prenatal testing was unchanged. The offer of individual information reduced anxiety later in pregnancy.
Conclusions: Ultrasonography is valued for non-medical reasons and chosen even by fully informed people who eschew prenatal diagnosis. The offer of extra information has no overall adverse effects on anxiety and reduces uptake of blood tests when background uptake rate is high (but not when it is already low). High uptake of prenatal blood tests suggests compliant behaviour and need for more information.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Adjusting for treatment refusal in rationing decisions

Richard Lilford, Alan Girling, Andrew Stevens, Abdullah Almasri, Mohammed A Mohammed, and David Braunholtz
BMJ 2006 332: 542-544. [Full Text] [PDF]

Information about prenatal testing does not necessarily increase uptake

W M O Moore
BMJ 1996 312: 508. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• O'Connor, A. M., Stacey, D., Barry, M. J., Col, N. F., Eden, K. B., Entwistle, V., Fiset, V., Holmes-Rovner, M., Khangura, S., Llewellyn-Thomas, H., Rovner, D. R. (2007). Do Patient Decision Aids Meet Effectiveness Criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Med Decis Making 27: 554-574 [Abstract]  
• Lilford, R., Girling, A., Stevens, A., Almasri, A., Mohammed, M. A, Braunholtz, D. (2006). Adjusting for treatment refusal in rationing decisions.. BMJ 332: 542-544 [Full text]  
• Griffith, J. M., Sorenson, J. R., Bowling, J. M., Jennings-Grant, T. (2005). Assessment of an Interactive Computer-Based Patient Prenatal Genetic Screening and Testing Education Tool. Health Educ Behav 32: 613-626 [Abstract]  
• Barry, M. J. (2002). Health Decision Aids To Facilitate Shared Decision Making in Office Practice. ANN INTERN MED 136: 127-135 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Graham, W., Smith, P., Kamal, A, Fitzmaurice, A, Smith, N, Hamilton, N, Wyatt, J. (2000). Randomised controlled trial comparing effectiveness of touch screen system with leaflet for providing women with information on prenatal tests • Commentary: Evaluating electronic consumer health material. BMJ 320: 155-160 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• O'Connor, A. M, Rostom, A., Fiset, V., Tetroe, J., Entwistle, V., Llewellyn-Thomas, H., Holmes-Rovner, M., Barry, M., Jones, J. (1999). Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: systematic review. BMJ 319: 731-734 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Simpson, W. M, Johnstone, F. D, Boyd, F. M, Goldberg, D. J, Hart, G. J, Prescott, R. J (1998). Uptake and acceptability of antenatal HIV testing: randomised controlled trial of different methods of offering the test. BMJ 316: 262-267 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Moore, W M O (1996). Information about prenatal testing does not necessarily increase uptake. BMJ 312: 508a-508 [Full text]