Literature DB >> 30838086

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

Meredith Vanstone1,2, Alexandra Cernat3, Umair Majid4, Forum Trivedi3, Chanté De Freitas5.   

Abstract

Background: Pregnant people have a risk of carrying a fetus affected by a chromosomal anomaly. Prenatal screening is offered to pregnant people to assess their risk. In recent years, noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has been introduced clinically, which uses the presence of circulating cell-free fetal DNA in the maternal blood to quantify the risk of a chromosomal anomaly. At present, NIPT is publicly funded for pregnancies at high risk of a chromosomal anomaly, and available to pregnant people at average risk if they choose to pay out of pocket.
Methods: We performed a systematic review of primary, empirical qualitative research that describes the experiences and perspectives of pregnant people, their families, clinicians, and others with lived experience relevant to NIPT. We were interested in the beliefs, experiences, preferences, and perspectives of these groups. We analyzed the evidence available in 36 qualitative and mixed-methods studies using the integrative technique of qualitative meta-synthesis.
Results: Most people (pregnant people, clinicians, and others with relevant lived experience) said that NIPT offered important information to pregnant people and their partners. Most people were very enthusiastic about widening access to NIPT because it can provide information about chromosomal anomalies quite early in pregnancy, with relatively high accuracy, and without risk of procedure-related pregnancy loss. However, many groups cautioned that widening access to NIPT may result in routinization of this test, causing potential harm to pregnant people, their families, the health care system, people living with disabilities, and society as a whole. Widened logistical, financial, emotional, and informational access may be perceived as a benefit, but it can also confer harm on various groups. Many of these challenges echo historical critiques of other forms of prenatal testing, with some issues mitigated or exacerbated by the particular features of NIPT. Conclusions: Noninvasive prenatal testing offers significant benefit for pregnant people but may also be associated with potential harms related to informed decision-making, inequitable use, social pressure to test, and reduced support for people with disabilities.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30838086      PMCID: PMC6398533     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser        ISSN: 1915-7398


  55 in total

Review 1.  Creating metasummaries of qualitative findings.

Authors:  Margarete Sandelowski; Julie Barroso
Journal:  Nurs Res       Date:  2003 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.381

Review 2.  Finding the findings in qualitative studies.

Authors:  Margarete Sandelowski; Julie Barroso
Journal:  J Nurs Scholarsh       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 3.176

3.  Metasynthesis: the state of the art--so far.

Authors:  Deborah L Finfgeld
Journal:  Qual Health Res       Date:  2003-09

4.  Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically relevant qualitative studies in MEDLINE.

Authors:  Sharon S-L Wong; Nancy L Wilczynski; R Brian Haynes
Journal:  Stud Health Technol Inform       Date:  2004

5.  Search strategies for identifying qualitative studies in CINAHL.

Authors:  Nancy L Wilczynski; Susan Marks; R Brian Haynes
Journal:  Qual Health Res       Date:  2007-05

6.  Prenatal diagnosis, prenatal screening, and the rise of the tentative pregnancy.

Authors:  T Tymstra
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 2.188

7.  Nondirectiveness in prenatal genetics: patients read between the lines.

Authors:  G Anderson
Journal:  Nurs Ethics       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 2.874

Review 8.  Toward a metasynthesis of qualitative findings on motherhood in HIV-positive women.

Authors:  Margarete Sandelowski; Julie Barroso
Journal:  Res Nurs Health       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 2.228

9.  Finding qualitative research: an evaluation of search strategies.

Authors:  Rachel L Shaw; Andrew Booth; Alex J Sutton; Tina Miller; Jonathan A Smith; Bridget Young; David R Jones; Mary Dixon-Woods
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2004-03-16       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

Authors:  David Moher; Alessandro Liberati; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 11.069

View more
  6 in total

1.  The impact of insurance on equitable access to non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPT): private insurance may not pay.

Authors:  Megan E Benoy; J Igor Iruretagoyena; Laura E Birkeland; Elizabeth M Petty
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2021-01-06

Review 2.  Societal implications of expanded universal carrier screening: a scoping review.

Authors:  Lieke M van den Heuvel; Nina van den Berg; A Cecile J W Janssens; Erwin Birnie; Lidewij Henneman; Wybo J Dondorp; Mirjam Plantinga; Irene M van Langen
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2022-09-12       Impact factor: 5.351

3.  Routinization of prenatal screening with the non-invasive prenatal test: pregnant women's perspectives.

Authors:  Karuna R M van der Meij; Annabel Njio; Linda Martin; Janneke T Gitsels-van der Wal; Mireille N Bekker; Elsbeth H van Vliet-Lachotzki; A Jeanine E M van der Ven; Adriana Kater-Kuipers; Danielle R M Timmermans; Erik A Sistermans; Robert-Jan H Galjaard; Lidewij Henneman
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2021-08-13       Impact factor: 5.351

4.  Should pregnant women be charged for non-invasive prenatal screening? Implications for reproductive autonomy and equal access.

Authors:  Robert-Jan H Galjaard; Inez D de Beaufort; Eline M Bunnik; Adriana Kater-Kuipers
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2019-09-16       Impact factor: 2.903

5.  Non-invasive prenatal test uptake in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Authors:  Karuna R M van der Meij; Caroline Kooij; Mireille N Bekker; Robert-Jan H Galjaard; Lidewij Henneman
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2021-09-14       Impact factor: 3.242

6.  Performance of a universal prenatal screening program incorporating cell-free fetal DNA analysis in Ontario, Canada.

Authors:  Shelley D Dougan; Nan Okun; Kara Bellai-Dussault; Lynn Meng; Heather E Howley; Tianhua Huang; Jessica Reszel; Andrea Lanes; Mark C Walker; Christine M Armour
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2021-08-03       Impact factor: 8.262

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.