Literature DB >> 24642832

Attitudes of pregnant women and male partners towards non-invasive prenatal testing and widening the scope of prenatal screening.

Rachèl V van Schendel1, Johanna H Kleinveld1, Wybo J Dondorp2, Eva Pajkrt3, Danielle R M Timmermans4, Kim C A Holtkamp1, Margreet Karsten1, Anne L Vlietstra1, Augusta M A Lachmeijer5, Lidewij Henneman1.   

Abstract

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and its potential to test for multiple disorders has received much attention. This study explores attitudes of women and men towards NIPT, and their views on widening the scope of prenatal testing in a country with a low uptake of prenatal screening (The Netherlands). Five focus groups with low-risk pregnant women (n=28), three focus groups with men (n=19) and 13 interviews with high- and low-risk pregnant women were conducted. Participants felt that current prenatal screening has great disadvantages such as uncertain results and risk of miscarriage from follow-up diagnostics. Characteristics of NIPT (accurate, safe and early testing) could therefore diminish these disadvantages of prenatal screening and help lower the barrier for participation. This suggests that NIPT might allow couples to decide about prenatal testing based mostly on their will to test or not, rather than largely based on fear of miscarriage risk or the uncertainty of results. The lower barrier for participation was also seen as a downside that could lead to uncritical use or pressure to test. Widening the scope of prenatal testing was seen as beneficial for severe disorders, although it was perceived difficult to determine where to draw the line. Participants argued that there should be a limit to the scope of NIPT, avoiding testing for minor abnormalities. The findings suggest that NIPT could enable more meaningful decision-making for prenatal screening. However, to ensure voluntary participation, especially when testing for multiple disorders, safeguards on the basis of informed decision-making will be of utmost importance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24642832      PMCID: PMC4231403          DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2014.32

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet        ISSN: 1018-4813            Impact factor:   4.246


  25 in total

Review 1.  Qualitative research in health care. Analysing qualitative data.

Authors:  C Pope; S Ziebland; N Mays
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-01-08

2.  Maternal plasma DNA sequencing reveals the genome-wide genetic and mutational profile of the fetus.

Authors:  Y M Dennis Lo; K C Allen Chan; Hao Sun; Eric Z Chen; Peiyong Jiang; Fiona M F Lun; Yama W Zheng; Tak Y Leung; Tze K Lau; Charles R Cantor; Rossa W K Chiu
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2010-12-08       Impact factor: 17.956

Review 3.  The use of cell-free fetal nucleic acids in maternal blood for non-invasive prenatal diagnosis.

Authors:  Caroline F Wright; Hilary Burton
Journal:  Hum Reprod Update       Date:  2008-10-22       Impact factor: 15.610

4.  Non-invasive prenatal testing: ethical issues explored.

Authors:  Antina de Jong; Wybo J Dondorp; Christine E M de Die-Smulders; Suzanne G M Frints; Guido M W R de Wert
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2009-12-02       Impact factor: 4.246

5.  Will the introduction of non-invasive prenatal diagnostic testing erode informed choices? An experimental study of health care professionals.

Authors:  Ananda van den Heuvel; Lyn Chitty; Elizabeth Dormandy; Ainsley Newson; Zuzana Deans; Sophie Attwood; Shelley Haynes; Theresa M Marteau
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2009-06-26

6.  Changing attitudes towards termination of pregnancy for trisomy 21 with non-invasive prenatal trisomy testing: a population-based study in Dutch pregnant women.

Authors:  E J Joanne Verweij; Dick Oepkes; Marjon A de Boer
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2013-02-14       Impact factor: 3.050

7.  Accepting or declining the offer of prenatal screening for congenital defects: test uptake and women's reasons.

Authors:  Matthijs van den Berg; Danielle R M Timmermans; Johanna H Kleinveld; Elisa Garcia; John M G van Vugt; Gerrit van der Wal
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 3.050

8.  Noninvasive prenatal diagnosis: pregnant women's interest and expected uptake.

Authors:  Reana Tischler; Louanne Hudgins; Yair J Blumenfeld; Henry T Greely; Kelly E Ormond
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2011-10-26       Impact factor: 3.050

9.  The attitude of women toward current and future possibilities of diagnostic testing in maternal blood using fetal DNA.

Authors:  Loes Kooij; Tjeerd Tymstra; Paul van den Berg
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 3.050

10.  Uptake of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in women following positive aneuploidy screening.

Authors:  Shilpa Chetty; Matthew J Garabedian; Mary E Norton
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 3.050

View more
  32 in total

1.  Consenting for molecular diagnostics.

Authors:  Robert Klitzman
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2014-11-12       Impact factor: 8.327

2.  "This lifetime commitment": Public conceptions of disability and noninvasive prenatal genetic screening.

Authors:  Rosemary J Steinbach; Megan Allyse; Marsha Michie; Emily Y Liu; Mildred K Cho
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2015-11-14       Impact factor: 2.802

3.  "It gives them more options": preferences for preconception genetic carrier screening for fragile X syndrome in primary healthcare.

Authors:  Alison D Archibald; Chriselle L Hickerton; Samantha A Wake; Alice M Jaques; Jonathan Cohen; Sylvia A Metcalfe
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2016-02-03

4.  Benefits, challenges and ethical principles associated with implementing noninvasive prenatal testing: a Delphi study.

Authors:  Charles Dupras; Stanislav Birko; Aliya Affdal; Hazar Haidar; Marie-Eve Lemoine; Vardit Ravitsky
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2018-10-31

5.  Perspectives of Pregnant People and Clinicians on Noninvasive Prenatal Testing: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Meta-synthesis.

Authors:  Meredith Vanstone; Alexandra Cernat; Umair Majid; Forum Trivedi; Chanté De Freitas
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2019-02-19

6.  Global perspectives on clinical adoption of NIPT.

Authors:  Mollie A Minear; Celine Lewis; Subarna Pradhan; Subhashini Chandrasekharan
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2015-09-25       Impact factor: 3.050

7.  Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and pregnant women's views on good motherhood: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Elisa Garcia; Lidewij Henneman; Janneke T Gitsels-van der Wal; Linda Martin; Isabel Koopmanschap; Mireille N Bekker; Danielle R M Timmermans
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2021-08-17       Impact factor: 5.351

8.  Spanish- and English-Speaking Pregnant Women's Views on cfDNA and Other Prenatal Screening: Practical and Ethical Reflections.

Authors:  Erin Floyd; Megan A Allyse; Marsha Michie
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 9.  Non-invasive prenatal testing: a review of international implementation and challenges.

Authors:  Megan Allyse; Mollie A Minear; Elisa Berson; Shilpa Sridhar; Margaret Rote; Anthony Hung; Subhashini Chandrasekharan
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2015-01-16

10.  Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis of Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophies by relative haplotype dosage.

Authors:  Michael Parks; Samantha Court; Siobhan Cleary; Samuel Clokie; Julie Hewitt; Denise Williams; Trevor Cole; Fiona MacDonald; Mike Griffiths; Stephanie Allen
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2016-02-23       Impact factor: 3.050

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.