Saskia Tamminga1, Rachèl V van Schendel1,2, Wieke Rommers3, Caterina M Bilardo3, Eva Pajkrt4, Wybo J Dondorp5, Merel van Maarle6, Martina C Cornel1,2, 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 Fetal Medicine and Prenatal Diagnosis, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fetal Medicine Unit, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 5. Department of Health, Ethics and Society, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Research Institutes GROW and CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 6. Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate health professionals' opinions toward offering noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as first-tier screening test regardless of pregnant women's risk, and toward a potential broader range of disorders. METHODS: A questionnaire completed by obstetric health professionals (n = 240) after an in-service NIPT training in the West and North of the Netherlands. RESULTS: The majority (72%) of respondents favored replacing first-trimester combined test (FCT) by NIPT, although 43% preferred to maintain nuchal translucency measurement. Many respondents believed that replacing FCT by NIPT would only have advantages (57%), would lead to more pregnant women opting for prenatal testing (69%), and would simplify counseling (47%). Differences in attitudes toward counseling between health professionals were observed. When considering NIPT to screen for broader range of disorders, the majority (92%) thought that this should include disorders characterized by neonatal death, whereas 52% of the respondents favored testing for fetomaternal risk factors. Overall, 46% thought screening should be offered as a fixed list of disorders. CONCLUSION: Most health professionals favor NIPT instead of FCT but prefer to maintain nuchal translucency measurement. If NIPT becomes available as a first-tier screening test, attention remains necessary to ensure that pregnant women make well-informed decisions in line with the aim of prenatal screening.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate health professionals' opinions toward offering noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as first-tier screening test regardless of pregnant women's risk, and toward a potential broader range of disorders. METHODS: A questionnaire completed by obstetric health professionals (n = 240) after an in-service NIPT training in the West and North of the Netherlands. RESULTS: The majority (72%) of respondents favored replacing first-trimester combined test (FCT) by NIPT, although 43% preferred to maintain nuchal translucency measurement. Many respondents believed that replacing FCT by NIPT would only have advantages (57%), would lead to more pregnant women opting for prenatal testing (69%), and would simplify counseling (47%). Differences in attitudes toward counseling between health professionals were observed. When considering NIPT to screen for broader range of disorders, the majority (92%) thought that this should include disorders characterized by neonatal death, whereas 52% of the respondents favored testing for fetomaternal risk factors. Overall, 46% thought screening should be offered as a fixed list of disorders. CONCLUSION: Most health professionals favor NIPT instead of FCT but prefer to maintain nuchal translucency measurement. If NIPT becomes available as a first-tier screening test, attention remains necessary to ensure that pregnant women make well-informed decisions in line with the aim of prenatal screening.
Authors: Linda Martin; Janneke T Gitsels-van der Wal; Caroline J Bax; Mijntje J Pieters; Jacqueline C I Y Reijerink-Verheij; Robert-Jan Galjaard; Lidewij Henneman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-05-02 Impact factor: 3.752
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: Rachèl V van Schendel; G C Lieve Page-Christiaens; Lean Beulen; Catia M Bilardo; Marjon A de Boer; Audrey B C Coumans; Brigitte H Faas; Irene M van Langen; Klaske D Lichtenbelt; Merel C van Maarle; Merryn V E Macville; Dick Oepkes; Eva Pajkrt; Lidewij Henneman Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2016-11-16 Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: Diane Van Opstal; Merel C van Maarle; Klaske Lichtenbelt; Marjan M Weiss; Heleen Schuring-Blom; Shama L Bhola; Mariette J V Hoffer; Karin Huijsdens-van Amsterdam; Merryn V Macville; Angelique J A Kooper; Brigitte H W Faas; Lutgarde Govaerts; Gita M Tan-Sindhunata; Nicolette den Hollander; Ilse Feenstra; Robert-Jan H Galjaard; Dick Oepkes; Stijn Ghesquiere; Rutger W W Brouwer; Lean Beulen; Sander Bollen; Martin G Elferink; Roy Straver; Lidewij Henneman; Godelieve C Page-Christiaens; Erik A Sistermans Journal: Genet Med Date: 2017-09-28 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Rachèl V van Schendel; Adriana Kater-Kuipers; Elsbeth H van Vliet-Lachotzki; Wybo J Dondorp; Martina C Cornel; Lidewij Henneman Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2016-09-13 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Iris M Bakkeren; Adriana Kater-Kuipers; Eline M Bunnik; Attie T J I Go; Aad Tibben; Inez D de Beaufort; Robert-Jan H Galjaard; Sam R Riedijk Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2019-11-11 Impact factor: 2.537