↓ Skip to main content

Attitudes Toward and Uptake of Prenatal Genetic Screening and Testing in Twin Pregnancies

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Genetic Counseling, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
Attitudes Toward and Uptake of Prenatal Genetic Screening and Testing in Twin Pregnancies
Published in
Journal of Genetic Counseling, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10897-018-0246-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathryn M. Reese, Jennifer Czerwinski, Sandra Darilek, Anthony Johnson, Malorie Jones, Claire N. Singletary

Abstract

The rate of twinning is rising and since the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing, interest in and uptake of genetic screening and testing in twin pregnancies has not been investigated. This study aimed to explore the attitudes toward and uptake of current prenatal genetic screening and diagnostic testing options for fetal aneuploidy in twin pregnancies. Women being seen for genetic counseling with twin gestations were recruited for participation in a descriptive study with questionnaire (n = 42) and semi-structured phone interview (n = 15). Women were significantly more in favor of screening than diagnostic testing (p = 0.049). Sixty-nine (n = 25) percent elected screening, while one participant had a diagnostic procedure. Women were interested in screening for preparation or reassurance despite having concerns about accuracy and uncertainty. Most women (86%) felt they would make the same decision in a singleton pregnancy. Despite this, 48% cited twin pregnancy as influential to some degree. Information learned from providers, past experiences, and family and friends were also cited as influencing and anchoring factors, suggesting that tailoring prenatal genetic counseling sessions for twins might parallel that of singletons. No significant differences between natural and assisted conception patients were found. Although it did not alter patient decisions, genetic counseling was used as a platform to raise concerns and gather information.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Student > Master 5 12%
Researcher 5 12%
Other 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 14 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 17 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 12 March 2018.
All research outputs
#18,590,133
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#956
of 1,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#258,527
of 332,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#36
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,160 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 332,646 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.