Reducing decisional conflict in decisions about prenatal genetic testing: the impact of a dyadic intervention at the start of prenatal care

Christina Collart; Caitlin Craighead; Meng Yao; Susannah Rose; Edward K Chien; Richard M Frankel; Marissa Coleridge; Bo Hu; Brownsyne Tucker Edmonds; Angela C Ranzini; Ruth M Farrell

doi:10.1515/jpm-2023-0442

Reducing decisional conflict in decisions about prenatal genetic testing: the impact of a dyadic intervention at the start of prenatal care

J Perinat Med. 2024 Apr 29. doi: 10.1515/jpm-2023-0442. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Christina Collart¹, Caitlin Craighead¹, Meng Yao², Susannah Rose³, Edward K Chien¹, Richard M Frankel⁴, Marissa Coleridge^{1

5}, Bo Hu², Brownsyne Tucker Edmonds⁶, Angela C Ranzini⁷, Ruth M Farrell^{1

5

8}

Affiliations

¹ Obstetrics and Gynecology Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
² Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
³ Department of Biomedical Informatics and Center for Biomedical Ethics and Society, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
⁴ Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
⁵ Genomic Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
⁶ Indiana University School of Medicine, 1772 Indiana University , Indianapolis, IN, USA.
⁷ Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The MetroHealth System, Cleveland, OH, USA.
⁸ Center for Bioethics, Clinical Transformation, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.

PMID: 38669584
DOI: 10.1515/jpm-2023-0442

Abstract

Objectives: Decisional conflict and regret about prenatal genetic screening and diagnostic tests may have important consequences in the current pregnancy and for future reproductive decisions. Identifying mechanisms that reduce conflict associated with the decision to use or decline these options is necessary for optimal patient counseling.

Methods: We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial of a shared decision-making tool (NEST) at the beginning of prenatal care. Enrolled patients completed follow-up surveys at the time of testing (QTT) and in the second-third trimester (QFF), including the Decision Conflict Scale (DCS). Total DCS scores were analyzed using a multivariate linear mixed-effect model.

Results: Of the total number of participants (n=502) enrolled, 449 completed the QTT and QFF surveys. The mean age of participants was 31.6±3.8, with most parous at the time of study participation (n=321; 71.7 %). Both the NEST (the intervention) and control groups had lower median total DCS scores at QFF (NEST 13.3 [1.7, 25.0] vs. control 16.7 [1.7, 25.0]; p=0.24) compared to QTT (NEST 20.8 [5.0, 25.0] vs. control 18.3 [3.3, 26.7]; p=0.89). Participants exposed to NEST had lower decisional conflict at QFF compared to control (β -3.889; [CI -7.341, -0.437]; p=0.027).

Conclusions: Using a shared decision-making tool at the start of prenatal care decreased decisional conflict regarding prenatal genetic testing. Such interventions have the potential to provide an important form of decision-making support for patients facing the unique type of complex and preference-based choices about the use of prenatal genetic tests.

Keywords: decisional regret; medical decision-making; prenatal genetic testing.