Rachèl V van Schendel1,2, Wybo J Dondorp3, Danielle R M Timmermans2,4, Eline J H van Hugte1,2, Anne de Boer1,2, Eva Pajkrt5, Augusta M A Lachmeijer1, Lidewij Henneman1,2. 1. Department of Clinical Genetics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 2. EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Health, Ethics and Society, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Research Institutes GROW and CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Public and Occupational Health, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fetal Medicine Unit, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to study pregnant women's views on noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for Down syndrome and the potential to test for a broader range of conditions. METHODS: An online questionnaire available on the Dutch pregnancy fair website was completed by 381 pregnant women. RESULTS: Of the women, 51% expressed interest in having NIPT, including 33% of women who had declined first-trimester screening. The majority (73%) thought that the uptake of screening would increase with NIPT. Most women agreed that testing for life-threatening (89%), severe physical (79%), or severe mental (76%) disorders should be offered. A minority (29%) felt that prenatal screening should also be offered for late-onset disorders. Most (41%) preferred to have a free choice from a list of disorders, 31% preferred a 'closed offer', and 26% preferred choosing between packages of disorders. Although most women (76%) thought that screening for a broad range of conditions would avoid much suffering, 39% feared that it would confront couples with choices, the implications of which would be difficult to grasp. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the uptake of screening will increase with NIPT. If NIPT will be offered for a broad range of conditions, it is crucial to find a way that facilitates rather than undermines well-informed decision-making.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to study pregnant women's views on noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for Down syndrome and the potential to test for a broader range of conditions. METHODS: An online questionnaire available on the Dutch pregnancy fair website was completed by 381 pregnant women. RESULTS: Of the women, 51% expressed interest in having NIPT, including 33% of women who had declined first-trimester screening. The majority (73%) thought that the uptake of screening would increase with NIPT. Most women agreed that testing for life-threatening (89%), severe physical (79%), or severe mental (76%) disorders should be offered. A minority (29%) felt that prenatal screening should also be offered for late-onset disorders. Most (41%) preferred to have a free choice from a list of disorders, 31% preferred a 'closed offer', and 26% preferred choosing between packages of disorders. Although most women (76%) thought that screening for a broad range of conditions would avoid much suffering, 39% feared that it would confront couples with choices, the implications of which would be difficult to grasp. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the uptake of screening will increase with NIPT. If NIPT will be offered for a broad range of conditions, it is crucial to find a way that facilitates rather than undermines well-informed decision-making.
Authors: Karuna R M van der Meij; Erik A Sistermans; Merryn V E Macville; Servi J C Stevens; Caroline J Bax; Mireille N Bekker; Caterina M Bilardo; Elles M J Boon; Marjan Boter; Karin E M Diderich; Christine E M de Die-Smulders; Leonie K Duin; Brigitte H W Faas; Ilse Feenstra; Monique C Haak; Mariëtte J V Hoffer; Nicolette S den Hollander; Iris H I M Hollink; Fernanda S Jehee; Maarten F C M Knapen; Angelique J A Kooper; Irene M van Langen; Klaske D Lichtenbelt; Ingeborg H Linskens; Merel C van Maarle; Dick Oepkes; Mijntje J Pieters; G Heleen Schuring-Blom; Esther Sikkel; Birgit Sikkema-Raddatz; Dominique F C M Smeets; Malgorzata I Srebniak; Ron F Suijkerbuijk; Gita M Tan-Sindhunata; A Jeanine E M van der Ven; Shama L van Zelderen-Bhola; Lidewij Henneman; Robert-Jan H Galjaard; Diane Van Opstal; Marjan M Weiss Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2019-11-07 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Agathe Delanoë; Johanie Lépine; Stéphane Turcotte; Maria Esther Leiva Portocarrero; Hubert Robitaille; Anik Mc Giguère; Brenda J Wilson; Holly O Witteman; Isabelle Lévesque; Laurence Guillaumie; France Légaré Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2016-10-28 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Rachèl V van Schendel; G C M Lieve Page-Christiaens; Lean Beulen; Caterina M Bilardo; Marjon A de Boer; Audrey B C Coumans; Brigitte H W Faas; Irene M van Langen; Klaske D Lichtenbelt; Merel C van Maarle; Merryn V E Macville; Dick Oepkes; Eva Pajkrt; Lidewij Henneman Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2017-06-30 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Melissa Hill; Jo-Ann Johnson; Sylvie Langlois; Hyun Lee; Stephanie Winsor; Brigid Dineley; Marisa Horniachek; Faustina Lalatta; Luisa Ronzoni; Angela N Barrett; Henna V Advani; Mahesh Choolani; Ron Rabinowitz; Eva Pajkrt; Rachèl V van Schendel; Lidewij Henneman; Wieke Rommers; Caterina M Bilardo; Paula Rendeiro; Maria João Ribeiro; José Rocha; Ida Charlotte Bay Lund; Olav B Petersen; Naja Becher; Ida Vogel; Vigdis Stefánsdottir; Sigrun Ingvarsdottir; Helga Gottfredsdottir; Stephen Morris; Lyn S Chitty Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2015-11-18 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: S L van der Steen; E M Bunnik; M G Polak; K E M Diderich; J Verhagen-Visser; L C P Govaerts; M Joosten; M F C M Knapen; A T J I Go; D Van Opstal; M I Srebniak; R J H Galjaard; A Tibben; S R Riedijk Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2017-07-04 Impact factor: 2.537