Caroline Silcock1, Lih-Mei Liao1, Melissa Hill2, Lyn S Chitty3,4. 1. University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust & UCL Institute for Women's Health, London, UK. 2. UCL Institute of Child Health, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust, and Fetal Medicine Unit, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 3. UCL Institute of Child Health, London, UK. 4. Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust and Fetal Medicine Unit, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the introduction of non-invasive pre-natal testing for Down's syndrome (DS) has the potential to undermine informed choice. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred and ninety-three health professionals; 523 pregnant women. METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire study across nine maternity units and three conferences in the UK designed to assess opinions regarding test delivery and how information should be communicated to women when offered Down's syndrome screening (DSS) or diagnosis using invasive (IDT) or non-invasive testing (NIPT). RESULTS: Both pregnant women and health professionals in the NIPT and DSS groups were less likely than the IDT group to consider that testing should take place at a return visit or that obtaining written consent was necessary, and more likely to think testing should be carried out routinely. Compared to health professionals, pregnant women expressed a stronger preference for testing to occur on the same day as pre-test counselling (P = 0.000) and for invasive testing to be offered routinely (P = 0.000). They were also more likely to indicate written consent as necessary for DSS (P = 0.000) and NIPT (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Health professionals and pregnant women view the consenting process differently across antenatal test types. These differences suggest that informed choice may be undermined with the introduction of NIPT for DS into clinical practice. To maintain high standards of care, effective professional training programmes and practice guidelines are needed which prioritize informed consent and take into account the views and needs of service users.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the introduction of non-invasive pre-natal testing for Down's syndrome (DS) has the potential to undermine informed choice. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred and ninety-three health professionals; 523 pregnant women. METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire study across nine maternity units and three conferences in the UK designed to assess opinions regarding test delivery and how information should be communicated to women when offered Down's syndrome screening (DSS) or diagnosis using invasive (IDT) or non-invasive testing (NIPT). RESULTS: Both pregnant women and health professionals in the NIPT and DSS groups were less likely than the IDT group to consider that testing should take place at a return visit or that obtaining written consent was necessary, and more likely to think testing should be carried out routinely. Compared to health professionals, pregnant women expressed a stronger preference for testing to occur on the same day as pre-test counselling (P = 0.000) and for invasive testing to be offered routinely (P = 0.000). They were also more likely to indicate written consent as necessary for DSS (P = 0.000) and NIPT (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Health professionals and pregnant women view the consenting process differently across antenatal test types. These differences suggest that informed choice may be undermined with the introduction of NIPT for DS into clinical practice. To maintain high standards of care, effective professional training programmes and practice guidelines are needed which prioritize informed consent and take into account the views and needs of service users.
Authors: L S Chitty; D R Griffin; C Meaney; A Barrett; A Khalil; E Pajkrt; T J Cole Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-02-01 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: Shenaz Ahmed; Jenny Hewison; Josephine M Green; Howard S Cuckle; Janet Hirst; Jim G Thornton Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2008-10-09 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: May Ee Png; Miaoqing Yang; Nia Roberts; Sian Taylor-Phillips; Oliver Rivero-Arias; Stavros Petrou Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-08-24 Impact factor: 2.692
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
Authors: Melissa Hill; David Wright; Rebecca Daley; Celine Lewis; Fiona McKay; Sarah Mason; Nicholas Lench; Abigail Howarth; Christopher Boustred; Kitty Lo; Vincent Plagnol; Kevin Spencer; Jane Fisher; Mark Kroese; Stephen Morris; Lyn S Chitty Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2014-07-16 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: An Chen; Henni Tenhunen; Paulus Torkki; Seppo Heinonen; Paul Lillrank; Vedran Stefanovic Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-03-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Hilary Bowman-Smart; Julian Savulescu; Cara Mand; Christopher Gyngell; Mark D Pertile; Sharon Lewis; Martin B Delatycki Journal: Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol Date: 2019-02-06 Impact factor: 2.100