Literature DB >> 34400811

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and pregnant women's views on good motherhood: a qualitative study.

Elisa Garcia1,2, Lidewij Henneman3, Janneke T Gitsels-van der Wal4, Linda Martin4, Isabel Koopmanschap3, Mireille N Bekker5, Danielle R M Timmermans6.   

Abstract

Women's views on responsible motherhood influence decision-making regarding participation in prenatal screening. Previous studies showed that the probabilistic nature of the first-trimester combined test and the potential requirement for subsequent invasive diagnostics serve as legitimate reasons for women to exclude prenatal screening from their moral responsibilities. These moral barriers might now be less relevant with the introduction of the non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) resulting in women feeling a moral duty to use NIPT screening as part of responsible motherhood. This qualitative study explores the impact of NIPT on women's moral beliefs about the meaning of prenatal screening in relation to responsible motherhood. We performed semi-structured interviews with 29 pregnant women who were offered NIPT as a first-tier screening test within a Dutch nationwide study (TRIDENT-2). Results show that the inherent uncertainty about the fetus's health despite improved accuracy and the lack of treatment for a detected disorder, combined with the possibility to obtain information about actionable anomalies through the fetal anomaly scan, support women's perspectives that NIPT is not an obligation of responsible motherhood. Acceptance of NIPT is considered to be a free decision related to the information each woman needs to be a good mother for her child and her family. Women's views may change when NIPT has expanded to include treatable or preventable conditions.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Human Genetics.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34400811      PMCID: PMC9177610          DOI: 10.1038/s41431-021-00945-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet        ISSN: 1018-4813            Impact factor:   5.351


  43 in total

1.  Moral responsibility and respect for autonomy: meeting the communitarian challenge.

Authors:  C C Guathier
Journal:  Kennedy Inst Ethics J       Date:  2000-12

2.  Refusing prenatal diagnosis: the meanings of bioscience in a multicultural world.

Authors:  Rayna Rapp
Journal:  Sci Technol Human Values       Date:  1998

3.  Reproductive freedom, self-regulation, and the government of impairment in utero.

Authors:  Shelley Tremain
Journal:  Hypatia       Date:  2006

4.  In defence of Procreative Beneficence.

Authors:  Julian Savulescu
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 2.903

5.  Women's decision making regarding prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy: A qualitative comparison between 2003 and 2016.

Authors:  Metje J van Bruggen; Lidewij Henneman; Daniëlle R M Timmermans
Journal:  Midwifery       Date:  2018-06-20       Impact factor: 2.372

6.  Genetic screening and democracy: lessons from debating genetic screening criteria in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Carla Geertruida van El; Toine Pieters; Martina Cornel
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2011-08-30

7.  Positive predictive value of non-invasive prenatal screening for fetal chromosome disorders using cell-free DNA in maternal serum: independent clinical experience of a tertiary referral center.

Authors:  Whitney A Neufeld-Kaiser; Edith Y Cheng; Yajuan J Liu
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2015-06-02       Impact factor: 8.775

8.  Explaining variation in Down's syndrome screening uptake: comparing the Netherlands with England and Denmark using documentary analysis and expert stakeholder interviews.

Authors:  Neeltje M T H Crombag; Ynke E Vellinga; Sandra A Kluijfhout; Louise D Bryant; Pat A Ward; Rita Iedema-Kuiper; Peter C J I Schielen; Jozien M Bensing; Gerard H A Visser; Ann Tabor; Janet Hirst
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-09-25       Impact factor: 2.655

9.  Prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidies with cell-free DNA in the general pregnancy population: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Genevieve Fairbrother; John Burigo; Thomas Sharon; Ken Song
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2015-05-22

10.  Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy and beyond: challenges of responsible innovation in prenatal screening.

Authors:  Wybo Dondorp; Guido de Wert; Yvonne Bombard; Diana W Bianchi; Carsten Bergmann; Pascal Borry; Lyn S Chitty; Florence Fellmann; Francesca Forzano; Alison Hall; Lidewij Henneman; Heidi C Howard; Anneke Lucassen; Kelly Ormond; Borut Peterlin; Dragica Radojkovic; Wolf Rogowski; Maria Soller; Aad Tibben; Lisbeth Tranebjærg; Carla G van El; Martina C Cornel
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-03-18       Impact factor: 4.246

View more
  2 in total

1.  What's new in genetics in June 2022?

Authors:  Alisdair McNeill
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2022-06       Impact factor: 5.351

2.  NIPT and the concerns regarding 'routinisation'.

Authors:  Ruth Horn
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2022-02-07       Impact factor: 5.351

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.