CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 30Prenatal Screening and DiagnosticsPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareEthics and bioethics in healthcare

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized controlled trial of decision aids for women considering prenatal testing: The effect of the Ottawa Personal Decision Guide on decisional conflict

Open access
ARIMORI, Naoko·2006·Japan Journal of Nursing Science
DOI 10.1111/j.1742-7924.2006.00062.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this research study was to clarify the effect that counseling using the Ottawa Personal Decision Guide had on pregnant women in helping them to decide whether or not to undergo prenatal testing. It compared the “decisional conflict” of a group of women interviewed by a nurse using the guide with that of a second group who were only given standard genetic counseling. Methods: A group of pregnant women attending the hospital for genetic counseling was randomly divided into an intervention group and a control group. The women in the intervention group were given standard genetic counseling, followed by an interview based on the decision aid guide. The women in the control group were given only standard genetic counseling. Both groups were followed up. The primary outcome of the study was to determine the level of decisional conflict, as measured by the Japanese version of the Decisional Conflict Scale. The secondary outcome was self‐esteem, based on the Rosenburg Self‐Esteem Scale. The outcome indicators were obtained from responses given in patient questionnaires conducted after standard genetic counseling (pre‐intervention) and after the conclusion of the decision‐making process (postintervention). Results: The pre‐intervention and postintervention changes in decisional conflict scores (primary outcome) indicated no significant difference between the two groups. However, with regard to postintervention decisional conflict, the rate of the response “mild to high decisional conflict” was lower for the intervention group than the control group. No significant difference between the two groups was detected for the secondary outcome of self‐esteem. Conclusions: The reasons for the lack of a clear effect on the level of decisional conflict are that the pre‐intervention responses for both groups were obtained after completion of the standard genetic counseling program and because follow‐up conducted by the nurses took the form of care given in response to patients’ needs. The use of decision aids to assist in the decision‐making process had no effect on the level of self‐esteem in the two groups. As a result, there was a similar level of intervention for both groups. However, as there was no clear indication that the use of the Ottawa Personal Decision Guide was harmful, it will be a useful tool in the medical care setting.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1742-7924.2006.00062.x

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 7 references

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Ando H., 1996, Korei‐shosanpu no ikuji‐ijou ni taisuru fuan to fuan he no taisho. Yousui‐kensa tono kanren kara [Concerns among pregnant women of advanced age about fetal abnormalities and responses to those concerns. Links to amniocentesis], Japanese Red Cross College of Nursing, 10, 43
  2. Aoki M., 2004, Yousui‐kensa wo uketa josei ga motomeru iryosha no kakawarikata [The kind of relationship women who have undergone amniocentesis want with their doctor], Genetic Nursing Committee in Japan, 2, 10
  3. Furuyama J., 2001, Heisei 13‐nendo Kosei Kagaku Kenkyu (Kodomo Katei Sogo Kenkyu Jigyo) [Japan Health Sciences Foundation Grant 2001 (Child Health Research) Report]
  4. Mothers’ and Children’s Health and Welfare Association, 2004, Bosihokenn no Syunaru Toukei [Maternal and Child Health Statistics of Japan].
  5. Mihara K., 2003, Workshop, Idenshi‐shinryoubu/Iden‐gairai deno kangoshoku no yakuwari [Workshop: The role of nurses in the gene therapy department and genetic outpatients clinic], Journal of Genetic Nursing Committee in Japan, 1, 35
  6. Nakagomi S., 2002, Shusshouzen ni‐okeru iden‐counseling no jissai [Prenatal genetic counseling], Magazine for the Public Health Nurse, 46, 24
  7. Rothenberg K. H., 1994, Women and Prenatal Testing: Facing the Challenges of Genetic Technology [Josei to Shusshouzen‐kensa. Anshin to‐iu na no Gensou]
  8. Sago H., 2000, Japan Health Sciences., (
  9. Suzuki Y., 2003, Chiimu iryou toshite‐no iden‐shinryou ni‐okeru kangoshoku no yakuwari [The role of the nurse in team‐based genetic treatment programs], Journal of the Japanese Society for Genetic Counseling, 24, 50
  10. Yamamoto M., 1982, Jison Kanjou Shakudo. Shinri Hantei Shakudo‐shuu 1 [Criteria for Self‐Esteem: Determining Psychological Criteria 1].
  11. Yamashita H., 2003, Idenshi‐kensa wo kangaeru kuraiento he no kangoshoku no kakawari. Ehlers–Danlos syndrome, Type IV, 1‐shourei [The relationship between nurses and clients considering genetic testing. One case of Ehlers–Danlos syndrome, type IV], Journal of the Japanese Society for Genetic Counseling, 24, 50
  12. Yokoo K., 2003, Iden‐kaunseringu no jissai to josanshi no yakuwari [Genetic counseling and the role of the midwife], Perinatal Care, 22, 1082

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 30

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
ARIMORI, N.
Affiliations
St. Luke's International University (JP)
Corresponding author
ARIMORI, Naoko
ORCID
ARIMORI, Naoko
Venue
Japan Journal of Nursing Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-11-28
Volume
3
Issue
2
Pages
119-130
ISSN
  • 1742-7924 (ISSN-L)
  • 1742-7932
DOI
10.1111/j.1742-7924.2006.00062.x
OpenAlex
W2057785542
Cited by
30
References
7
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
Japan Journal of Nursing Science (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of California, San Francisco
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
Keywords
decision aids, prenatal testing, decisional conflict, genetic counseling, pregnant women, self-esteem, nursing counseling, Decisional Conflict Scale, patient decision-making

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