A Qualitative Study Looking at Informed Choice in the Context of Non-invasive Prenatal Testing for Aneuploidy

Overview

Journal Prenat Diagn

Publisher Wiley

Specialty Gynecology & Obstetrics

Date 2016 Aug 2

PMID 27477537

Citations 20

Authors

Celine Lewis

Melissa Hill

Lyn S Chitty

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To explore women's attitudes towards non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and determine factors influencing their decisions around uptake of NIPT.

Method: We conducted qualitative interviews to assess knowledge, attitude and deliberation amongst women offered NIPT in a public health service. In total, 45 women took part in telephone interviews (79% participation rate).

Results: Most women could recount the key aspects of NIPT discussed during pre-test counselling but had variable knowledge about Down syndrome. Analysis of women's attitudes towards undergoing NIPT revealed three dominant factors they considered when reflecting on the test: (1) how NIPT compared with alternative testing options, (2) reflections on coping and (3) moral or religious values. Exploring the deliberative process revealed the different paths women take when making decisions. For some, it was an extension of the decision to have Down syndrome screening; some considered it early on following the booking-in appointment; others made step-wise decisions about NIPT when it became relevant to them.

Conclusion: Our findings support the importance of personalised counselling, whereby women and their partners have the opportunity to reflect on the implications of the test results in the context of their own lives and values. Our data highlight the influence of personal circumstances on decision-making. © 2016 The Authors. Prenatal Diagnosis published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Citing Articles

Exploring Women's Experiences of Amniocentesis: A Qualitative Content Analysis.

Kownaklai J, Kuasit U, Thaicharoen N Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2025; 30(1):74-80.

PMID: 40052030 PMC: 11881963. DOI: 10.4103/ijnmr.ijnmr_107_23.

"Knowledge was clearly associated with education." epistemic positioning in the context of informed choice: a scoping review and secondary qualitative analysis.

Ireland-Blake N, Cram F, Dew K, Bacharach S, Snelling J, Stone P BMC Med Ethics. 2025; 26(1):1.

PMID: 39789516 PMC: 11715538. DOI: 10.1186/s12910-024-01144-7.

Healthcare professionals' experiences with expanded noninvasive prenatal screening: challenges and solutions.

Claesen-Bengtson Z, van der Meij K, Vermeesch J, Henneman L, Borry P J Community Genet. 2024; .

PMID: 39708236 DOI: 10.1007/s12687-024-00751-6.

Factors influencing pregnant women's decision to accept or decline prenatal screening and diagnosis - a qualitative study.

Ternby E, Axelsson O, Ingvoldstad Malmgren C, Georgsson S J Community Genet. 2024; 15(6):711-721.

PMID: 39485622 PMC: 11645329. DOI: 10.1007/s12687-024-00746-3.

Potential efficacy of digital polymerase chain reaction for non-invasive prenatal screening of autosomal aneuploidies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Parsaei M, Dashtkoohi M, Salmani T, Najafi M, Haddadi M, Ghaemi M BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2024; 24(1):472.

PMID: 38992581 PMC: 11238349. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-024-06655-0.

References

Farrell R, Hawkins A, Barragan D, Hudgins L, Taylor J . Knowledge, understanding, and uptake of noninvasive prenatal testing among Latina women. Prenat Diagn. 2015; 35(8):748-53. DOI: 10.1002/pd.4599. View

Archibald A, McClaren B . Perceived relevance of genetic carrier screening: observations of the role of health-related life experiences and stage of life in decision making. J Community Genet. 2011; 3(1):47-54. PMC: 3266967. DOI: 10.1007/s12687-011-0067-8. View

. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 77: screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 109(1):217-27. DOI: 10.1097/00006250-200701000-00054. View

Gil M, Quezada M, Revello R, Akolekar R, Nicolaides K . Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for fetal aneuploidies: updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 45(3):249-66. DOI: 10.1002/uog.14791. View

Hill M, Wright D, Daley R, Lewis C, McKay F, Mason S . Evaluation of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for aneuploidy in an NHS setting: a reliable accurate prenatal non-invasive diagnosis (RAPID) protocol. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014; 14:229. PMC: 4226037. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-229. View

Bangsgaard L, Tabor A . Do pregnant women and their partners make an informed choice about first trimester risk assessment for Down syndrome, and are they satisfied with the choice?. Prenat Diagn. 2012; 33(2):146-52. DOI: 10.1002/pd.4026. View

Garcia E, Timmermans D, van Leeuwen E . The impact of ethical beliefs on decisions about prenatal screening tests: searching for justification. Soc Sci Med. 2007; 66(3):753-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.10.010. View

Vassy C, Rosman S, Rousseau B . From policy making to service use. Down's syndrome antenatal screening in England, France and the Netherlands. Soc Sci Med. 2014; 106:67-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.01.046. View

Gourounti K, Sandall J . Do pregnant women in Greece make informed choices about antenatal screening for Down's syndrome? A questionnaire survey. Midwifery. 2007; 24(2):153-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2006.09.001. View

10.

Choi H, Van Riper M, Thoyre S . Decision making following a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome: an integrative review. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2012; 57(2):156-64. DOI: 10.1111/j.1542-2011.2011.00109.x. View

11.

Lewis C, Hill M, Chitty L . Women's Experiences and Preferences for Service Delivery of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Aneuploidy in a Public Health Setting: A Mixed Methods Study. PLoS One. 2016; 11(4):e0153147. PMC: 4821600. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153147. View

12.

Bekker H, Thornton J, Airey C, Connelly J, Hewison J, Robinson M . Informed decision making: an annotated bibliography and systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 1999; 3(1):1-156. View

13.

Elwyn G, Miron-Shatz T . Deliberation before determination: the definition and evaluation of good decision making. Health Expect. 2009; 13(2):139-47. PMC: 5060530. DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00572.x. View

14.

Lewis C, Hill M, Skirton H, Chitty L . Development and validation of a measure of informed choice for women undergoing non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015; 24(6):809-16. PMC: 4867447. DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.207. View

15.

Wright C, Chitty L . Cell-free fetal DNA and RNA in maternal blood: implications for safer antenatal testing. BMJ. 2009; 339:b2451. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b2451. View

16.

Norton M, Jacobsson B, Swamy G, Laurent L, Ranzini A, Brar H . Cell-free DNA analysis for noninvasive examination of trisomy. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372(17):1589-97. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1407349. View

17.

Lewis C, Silcock C, Chitty L . Non-invasive prenatal testing for Down's syndrome: pregnant women's views and likely uptake. Public Health Genomics. 2013; 16(5):223-32. DOI: 10.1159/000353523. View

18.

Skirton H, Goldsmith L, Jackson L, Lewis C, Chitty L . Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy: a systematic review of Internet advertising to potential users by commercial companies and private health providers. Prenat Diagn. 2015; 35(12):1167-75. DOI: 10.1002/pd.4673. View

19.

Dormandy E, Tsui E, Marteau T . Development of a measure of informed choice suitable for use in low literacy populations. Patient Educ Couns. 2007; 66(3):278-95. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.01.001. View

20.

van den Berg M, Timmermans D, Ten Kate L, van Vugt J, van der Wal G . Informed decision making in the context of prenatal screening. Patient Educ Couns. 2005; 63(1-2):110-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.09.007. View