The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Survey of the definition of fetal viability and the availability, indications, and decision making processes for post-viability termination of pregnancy for fetal abnormalities and health conditions in Canada
Open accessAbstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the definition of fetal viability and the availability, indications, and decision making processes for post-viability termination of pregnancy for fetal abnormalities and health conditions in Canada. An online survey of members of the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists, and the Canadian Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine who provide direct counselling to, or management of, prenatal patients in Canada (total sample size 815). Results of this study showed that the majority of respondents indicated that their centre will offer post-viability termination of pregnancy (98/123; 80 %). Sixty-seven percent (68/101) of respondents reported the definition of fetal viability to be 24 weeks' gestation. Most respondents reported that a collaborative decision making process was used to determine if post-viability termination of pregnancy would be offered (136/170; 80 %). For conditions presumed to be lethal/likely lethal, the majority of respondents would "sometimes" or "always" offer post-viability termination of pregnancy, whereas for conditions presumed to have a mild effect, the majority of respondents would "rarely" or "never" offer post-viability termination of pregnancy. Ninety percent (77/86) of respondents reported that perinatal hospice is offered as an alternative to termination of pregnancy. In conclusion, this study suggests that although post-viability termination is available in many provinces in Canada, variation in the definition of fetal viability and indications appear to exist. While these variations may lead to unequal access to post-viability termination of pregnancy across Canada, they might also represent the complexity of the decision making process and the importance of examining individual factors to ensure that the most appropriate decision is made in each case.
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The limited number of rural respondents possibly indicates a lack of rural access in some communities, especially for STSA.
“the limited number of rural respondents possibly indicates a lack of rural access in some communities, especially for STSA.”
From First and Second-Trimester Surgical Abortion Providers and Services in 2019: Results From the Canadian Abortion Provider Survey (2023) · cites this paper as [16]
The Discussion (page not provided) suggests that geographic location can affect access to post-viability termination of pregnancy. The Results (page not provided) say most respondents worked at tertiary or university-associated centres, but do not identify a limited number of rural respondents. The paper does not establish the claim’s particular inference about rural communities or STSA. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Cites
Langlois, S. F., Brock, J., Wilson, R. D., Audibert, F., Brock, J., Carroll, J. C., Cartier, L., Gagnon, A., Johnson, J.-A., Langlois, S. F., et al. (2013) · Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada · doi:10.1016/s1701-2163(15)31025-2 · Cited by 114
Hoeldtke, N., & Calhoun, B. C. (2001) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1067/mob.2001.116093 · Cited by 83
Counselling and management for anticipated extremely preterm birth.
Jefferies, A. L., Kirpalani, H. M., Albersheim, S., & Lynk, A. (2014) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 80
Counselling and management for anticipated extremely preterm birth
Jefferies, A. L., Kirpalani, H. M., & Canadian Paediatric Society (2012) · Paediatrics & Child Health · doi:10.1093/pch/17.8.443 · Cited by 67
RETIRED: Canadian Contraception Consensus
Black, A., Francoeur, D., Rowe, T., et al. (2004) · Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada · doi:10.1016/s1701-2163(16)30363-2 · Cited by 61
Far From Home? A Pilot Study Tracking Women’s Journeys to a Canadian Abortion Clinic
Sethna, C., & Doull, M. (2007) · Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada · doi:10.1016/s1701-2163(16)32560-9 · Cited by 45
A Review of Therapeutic Abortions and Related Areas of Concern in Canada
Sabourin, J. N., & Burnett, M. A. (2012) · Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada · doi:10.1016/s1701-2163(16)35269-0 · Cited by 40
RETIRED: Induced Abortion Guidelines
Davis, V. J. (2006) · Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada · doi:10.1016/s1701-2163(16)32296-4 · Cited by 28
RETIRED: Canadian Contraception Consensus
Black, A., Francoeur, D., Rowe, T., et al. (2004) · Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada · doi:10.1016/s1701-2163(16)30490-x · Cited by 15
Management of the newborn delivered at the threshold of viability
Synnes, A. R., Buchanan, L. S., Ruth, C., et al. (2008) · Cited by 14
Hull, D., Davies, G., & Armour, C. M. (2012) · Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada · doi:10.1016/s1701-2163(16)35314-2 · Cited by 3
Self-citationDubious validity of novel maternal-fetal outcome model
Hoeldtke, N. (2001) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1067/mob.2001.114486 · Cited by 2
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2012, Induced abortions reported in Canada in 2012.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Renner, R., Ennis, M., Kean, L., Brooks, M., Dineley, B., Pymar, H., Norman, W. V., & Guilbert, E. (2023) · Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada · doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2023.08.001 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Hull, D., Davies, G., & Armour, C. M.
- Affiliations
- Kingston General Hospital (CA)
- Queen's University (CA)
- Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Hull, Danna
- Venue
- Journal of Genetic Counseling
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-11-05
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 543-551
- ISSN
- 1059-7700 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-3599
- OpenAlex
- W1927936270
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 0.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Genetic Counseling (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Keywords
- fetal viability, fetal malformations, prenatal diagnosis, collaborative decision-making, perinatal hospice, interprovincial variation, genetic counseling, Canada
- MeSH terms
- Abortion, Induced, Counselors, Canada, Decision Making, Female, Fetal Viability, Genetic Counseling, Genetics, Medical, Humans, Pregnancy, Surveys and Questionnaires
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
