Literature DB >> 27357315

Evaluation of preferences of women and healthcare professionals in Singapore for implementation of noninvasive prenatal testing for Down syndrome.

Angela Natalie Barrett1, Henna Vishal Advani1, Lyn S Chitty2, Lin Lin Su3, Arijit Biswas3, Wei Ching Tan4, Melissa Hill2, Mahesh Choolani1,3.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Invasive prenatal diagnosis (IPD) has long been used to prenatally diagnose Down syndrome (DS), but it is associated with a small risk of miscarriage. Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is a highly sensitive screening test using cell-free DNA in maternal blood for detection of DS without the risk of miscarriage, but it confers a small risk of false-positive and false-negative results. The implementation of these procedures into clinical practice requires an understanding of stakeholder preferences.
METHODS: A total of 69 health professionals (HPs) and 301 women took part in a discrete choice experiment (DCE) in which preferences for four prenatal test attributes - accuracy, time of results, risk of miscarriage and amount of information provided - were assessed. Conditional logit regression was used to analyse the data. Data on demographics and ranked preferences for test attributes was collected, and a direct choice question regarding NIPT, IPD or neither test was posed to participants.
RESULTS: The women showed a preference for test safety, whereas HPs prioritised test accuracy above all other attributes. When offered a direct choice of NIPT, IPD or neither test, women aged 35 years and older, those with previous miscarriage or who knew a child with DS were more likely to choose NIPT. Chinese women preferred NIPT, whereas Indian women preferred IPD.
CONCLUSION: Our data highlights the need for patient-specific counselling, taking into account previous experiences and cultural factors. Since women and HPs prioritise different test attributes, it is essential that HPs recognise these differences in order to provide non-biased counselling. Copyright: © Singapore Medical Association

Entities:  

Keywords:  NIPT; cell-free DNA; cell-free fetal DNA; prenatal screening

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27357315      PMCID: PMC5474525          DOI: 10.11622/smedj.2016114

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Singapore Med J        ISSN: 0037-5675            Impact factor:   1.858


  44 in total

1.  Diagnostic value of ultrasonographic combining biochemical markers for Down syndrome screening in first trimester: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yang Liu; Xingguang Ye; Na Zhang; Baohuan Zhang; Congcong Guo; Weihuang Huang; Lipeng Jing; Man Wang; Guang Yang; Xiangcai Wei; Chunxia Jing
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2015-06-28       Impact factor: 3.050

2.  Detection of fetal subchromosomal abnormalities by sequencing circulating cell-free DNA from maternal plasma.

Authors:  Chen Zhao; John Tynan; Mathias Ehrich; Gregory Hannum; Ron McCullough; Juan-Sebastian Saldivar; Paul Oeth; Dirk van den Boom; Cosmin Deciu
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2015-02-20       Impact factor: 8.327

3.  Assessment of fetal sex chromosome aneuploidy using directed cell-free DNA analysis.

Authors:  Kypros H Nicolaides; Thomas J Musci; Craig A Struble; Argyro Syngelaki; M M Gil
Journal:  Fetal Diagn Ther       Date:  2013-12-11       Impact factor: 2.587

4.  Noninvasive prenatal testing goes global.

Authors:  Subhashini Chandrasekharan; Mollie A Minear; Anthony Hung; Megan Allyse
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2014-04-09       Impact factor: 17.956

5.  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

6.  A new era in prenatal care: non-invasive prenatal testing in Switzerland.

Authors:  Gwendolin Manegold-Brauer; Anjeung Kang Bellin; Sinuhe Hahn; Christian De Geyter; Johanna Buechel; Irene Hoesli; Olav Lapaire
Journal:  Swiss Med Wkly       Date:  2014-02-04       Impact factor: 2.193

7.  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

8.  Detection of microdeletion 22q11.2 in a fetus by next-generation sequencing of maternal plasma.

Authors:  Taylor J Jensen; Zeljko Dzakula; Cosmin Deciu; Dirk van den Boom; Mathias Ehrich
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2012-05-04       Impact factor: 8.327

9.  Attitudes towards non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy among US adults of reproductive age.

Authors:  M Allyse; L C Sayres; T A Goodspeed; M K Cho
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2014-03-06       Impact factor: 2.521

10.  Evaluation of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for aneuploidy in an NHS setting: a reliable accurate prenatal non-invasive diagnosis (RAPID) protocol.

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

View more
  4 in total

1.  Progress in obstetrics and gynaecology - evidence-based practices and practice-based evidence reviews.

Authors:  Kok Hian Tan
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 1.858

2.  A Hierarchical Bayes Approach to Modeling Heterogeneity in Discrete Choice Experiments: An Application to Public Preferences for Prenatal Screening.

Authors:  Tima Mohammadi; Wei Zhang; Julie Sou; Sylvie Langlois; Sarah Munro; Aslam H Anis
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  Talking Points: Women's Information Needs for Informed Decision-Making About Noninvasive Prenatal Testing for Down Syndrome.

Authors:  Aimée C Dane; Madelyn Peterson; Yvette D Miller
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2018-03-17       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 4.  Application of discrete choice experiments to enhance stakeholder engagement as a strategy for advancing implementation: a systematic review.

Authors:  Ramzi G Salloum; Elizabeth A Shenkman; Jordan J Louviere; David A Chambers
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2017-11-23       Impact factor: 7.327

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.