title: Effect of enhanced information, values clarification, and removal of financial barriers on use of prenatal genetic testing: a randomized clinical trial.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Prenatal genetic testing guidelines recommend providing patients with detailed information to allow informed, preference-based screening and diagnostic testing decisions. The effect of implementing these guidelines is not well understood.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To analyze the effect of a decision-support guide and elimination of financial barriers to testing on use of prenatal genetic testing and decision making among pregnant women of varying literacy and numeracy levels.
  
  
  METHODS
  Randomized trial conducted from 2010-2013 at prenatal clinics at 3 county hospitals, 1 community clinic, 1 academic center, and 3 medical centers of an integrated health care delivery system in the San Francisco Bay area. Participants were English- or Spanish-speaking women who had not yet undergone screening or diagnostic testing and remained pregnant at 11 weeks' gestation (n = 710).
  
  
  METHODS
  A computerized, interactive decision-support guide and access to prenatal testing with no out-of-pocket expense (n = 357) or usual care as per current guidelines (n = 353).
  
  
  METHODS
  The primary outcome was invasive diagnostic test use, obtained via medical record review. Secondary outcomes included testing strategy undergone, and knowledge about testing, risk comprehension, and decisional conflict and regret at 24 to 36 weeks' gestation.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Women randomized to the intervention group, compared with those randomized to the control group, were less likely to have invasive diagnostic testing (5.9% vs 12.3%; odds ratio [OR], 0.45 [95% CI, 0.25-0.80]) and more likely to forgo testing altogether (25.6% vs 20.4%; OR, 3.30 [95% CI, 1.43-7.64], reference group screening followed by invasive testing). Women randomized to the intervention group also had higher knowledge scores (9.4 vs 8.6 on a 15-point scale; mean group difference, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.34-1.31]) and were more likely to correctly estimate the amniocentesis-related miscarriage risk (73.8% vs 59.0%; OR, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.39-2.75]) and their estimated age-adjusted chance of carrying a fetus with trisomy 21 (58.7% vs 46.1%; OR, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.22-2.28]). Significant differences did not emerge in decisional conflict or regret.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Full implementation of prenatal testing guidelines using a computerized, interactive decision-support guide in the absence of financial barriers to testing resulted in less test use and more informed choices. If validated in additional populations, this approach may result in more informed and preference-based prenatal testing decision making and fewer women undergoing testing.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00505596.
authors.affiliation: Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco2Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco3The Medical Effectiveness Research Center for Diverse Population.
authors.forename: Miriam
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Kuppermann
authors.affiliation: Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco.
authors.forename: Sherri
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Pena
authors.affiliation: Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco.
authors.forename: Judith T
authors.initials: JT
authors.lastname: Bishop
authors.affiliation: Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco.
authors.forename: Sanae
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Nakagawa
authors.affiliation: The Medical Effectiveness Research Center for Diverse Populations, University of California, San Francisco4Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
authors.forename: Steven E
authors.initials: SE
authors.lastname: Gregorich
authors.affiliation: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose,California.
authors.forename: Anita
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Sit
authors.affiliation: Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco.
authors.forename: Juan
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Vargas
authors.affiliation: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.
authors.forename: Aaron B
authors.initials: AB
authors.lastname: Caughey
authors.affiliation: La Clínica de la Raza, Oakland, California.
authors.forename: Susan
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Sykes
authors.affiliation: Alameda County Health System.
authors.forename: Lasha
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Pierce
authors.affiliation: Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco.
authors.forename: Mary E
authors.initials: ME
authors.lastname: Norton
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D003661:Decision Support Techniques; D005260:Female; D005820:Genetic Testing / Q000191:economics / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D019983:Guideline Adherence; D057220:Health Literacy; D006801:Humans; D010358:Patient Participation; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic; D011247:Pregnancy; D011296:Prenatal Diagnosis / Q000191:economics / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D012306:Risk