The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Facilitating informed choice in prenatal testing: How well are we doing?
Abstract
There is a consensus that prenatal testing services need to provide the information and support necessary for women to make informed choices about prenatal testing. Informed choices are those based on relevant information that reflect the decision‐maker's values. To date, most research has focused on the information provided to women deciding whether to undergo tests. This has highlighted the poor quality of information provided to many women. There is agreement on the need to provide information on three key aspects of any test: the condition for which testing is being offered, characteristics of the test, and the implications of testing. Very little research has been conducted on decisions after the diagnosis of a fetal abnormality and how information and emotional and decisional support are and should be provided. Research is now needed in four key areas: first, on the optimal ways of organizing services to facilitate choices that are not only based on relevant information, but also reflect the decision‐maker's values; second, on the most effective ways of framing information needed for the different decisions involved in prenatal testing; third, on the most effective media in which to deliver information; and, fourth, to identify aspects of counseling that facilitate informed choices following diagnoses of fetal abnormality. If we value women's ability to make informed choices about prenatal tests as highly as we value reliable laboratory tests, evidence‐based quality standards need to be developed for the information and support women are given at all stages of the process of prenatal testing. © 2001 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Patient involvement in treatment decision-making: The case for a broader conceptual framework
Entwistle, V. A., & Watt, I. S. (2006) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2006.05.002 · Cited by 314
Use of Social Network Sites for Communication Among Health Professionals: Systematic Review
Chan, W. S., & Leung, A. Y. (2018) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.8382 · Cited by 206
Vukušić Rukavina, T., Viskić, J., Machala Poplašen, L., Relić, D., Marelić, M., Jokic, D., & Sedak, K. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/25770 · Cited by 199
Allegue, D. R., Higgins, J., Sweet, S. N., Archambault, P. S., Michaud, F., Miller, W., Tousignant, M., & Kairy, D. (2021) · doi:10.2196/preprints.33745 · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- Marteau, T. M., & Dormandy, E.
- Venue
- American Journal of Medical Genetics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-09
- Volume
- 106
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 185-190
- ISSN
- 0148-7299 (ISSN-L)
- 1096-8628
- OpenAlex
- W2164469032
- Cited by
- 247
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Facilitating informed choice in prenatal testing: How well are we doing? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ajmg.10006
- The paper
- Marteau, T. M., & Dormandy, E. (2001). Facilitating informed choice in prenatal testing: How well are we doing? American Journal of Medical Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.10006
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.