↓ Skip to main content

Decision aids that support decisions about prenatal testing for Down syndrome: an environmental scan

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Decision aids that support decisions about prenatal testing for Down syndrome: an environmental scan
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12911-015-0199-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Esther Leiva Portocarrero, Mirjam M Garvelink, Maria Margarita Becerra Perez, Anik Giguère, Hubert Robitaille, Brenda J. Wilson, François Rousseau, France Légaré

Abstract

Prenatal screening tests for Down syndrome (DS) are routine in many developed countries and new tests are rapidly becoming available. Decisions about prenatal screening are increasingly complex with each successive test, and pregnant women need information about risks and benefits as well as clarity about their values. Decision aids (DAs) can help healthcare providers support women in this decision. Using an environmental scan, we aimed to identify publicly available DAs focusing on prenatal screening/diagnosis for Down syndrome that provide effective support for decision making. Data sources searched were the Decision Aids Library Inventory (DALI) of the Ottawa Patient Decision Aids Research Group at the Ottawa Health Research Institute; Google searches on the internet; professional organizations, academic institutions and other experts in the field; and references in existing systematic reviews on DAs. Eligible DAs targeted pregnant women, focused on prenatal screening and/or diagnosis, applied to tests for fetal abnormalities or aneuploidies, and were in French, English, Spanish or Portuguese. Pairs of reviewers independently identified eligible DAs and extracted characteristics including the presence of practical decision support tools and features to aid comprehension. They then performed quality assessment using the 16 minimum standards established by the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDASi v4.0). Of 543 potentially eligible DAs (512 in DALI, 27 from experts, and four on the internet), 23 were eligible and 20 were available for data extraction. DAs were developed from 1996 to 2013 in six countries (UK, USA, Canada, Australia, Sweden, and France). Five DAs were for prenatal screening, three for prenatal diagnosis and 12 for both). Eight contained values clarification methods (personal worksheets). The 20 DAs scored a median of 10/16 (range 6-15) on the 16 IPDAS minimum standards. None of the 20 included DAs met all 16 IPDAS minimum standards, and few included practical decision support tools or aids to comprehension. Our results indicate there is a need for DAs that effectively support decision making regarding prenatal testing for Down syndrome, especially in light of the recently available non-invasive prenatal screening tests.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 2%
Unknown 91 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 16%
Researcher 14 15%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Other 8 9%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 16 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Psychology 8 9%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 30 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 December 2017.
All research outputs
#3,513,417
of 25,252,667 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#275
of 2,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,341
of 281,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#4
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,252,667 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,135 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 281,319 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.