» Articles » PMID: 30838086

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

Overview
Date 2019 Mar 7
PMID 30838086
Citations 18
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

Experiences of perinatal genetic screening for people from migrant and refugee backgrounds: a scoping review.

Kanga-Parabia A, Archibald A, Biggs L, Lewis S, Tutty E, Dawson-McClaren B Eur J Hum Genet. 2025; .

PMID: 39755878 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-024-01748-y.


Defining ethical criteria to guide the expanded use of Noninvasive Prenatal Screening (NIPS): Lessons about severity from preimplantation genetic testing.

Gallois H, Ravitsky V, Roy M, Laberge A Eur J Hum Genet. 2024; 33(2):167-175.

PMID: 39462080 PMC: 11840150. DOI: 10.1038/s41431-024-01714-8.


The expressivist argument for recent policy changes regarding the provision of prenatal testing in Japan.

Enzo A Glob Bioeth. 2024; 35(1):2398299.

PMID: 39228857 PMC: 11370675. DOI: 10.1080/11287462.2024.2398299.


Patient perspectives on pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing for antidepressant prescribing in primary care: a qualitative description study.

Cernat A, Samaan Z, Abelson J, Ramdyal A, Shaikh H, Vanstone M J Community Genet. 2024; 15(3):293-309.

PMID: 38587601 PMC: 11217204. DOI: 10.1007/s12687-024-00705-y.


Equity in prenatal healthcare services globally: an umbrella review.

Ladak Z, Grewal N, Kim M, Small S, Leber A, Hemani M BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2024; 24(1):191.

PMID: 38468220 PMC: 10926563. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-024-06388-0.


References
1.
Allyse M, Sayres L, Havard M, King J, Greely H, Hudgins L . Best ethical practices for clinicians and laboratories in the provision of noninvasive prenatal testing. Prenat Diagn. 2013; 33(7):656-61. PMC: 4057377. DOI: 10.1002/pd.4144. View

2.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009; 6(7):e1000097. PMC: 2707599. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. View

3.
Audibert F, De Bie I, Johnson J, Okun N, Wilson R, Armour C . No. 348-Joint SOGC-CCMG Guideline: Update on Prenatal Screening for Fetal Aneuploidy, Fetal Anomalies, and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2017; 39(9):805-817. DOI: 10.1016/j.jogc.2017.01.032. View

4.
Floyd E, Allyse M, Michie M . Spanish- and English-Speaking Pregnant Women's Views on cfDNA and Other Prenatal Screening: Practical and Ethical Reflections. J Genet Couns. 2016; 25(5):965-77. PMC: 4936962. DOI: 10.1007/s10897-015-9928-3. View

5.
Reese K, Czerwinski J, Darilek S, Johnson A, Jones M, Singletary C . Attitudes Toward and Uptake of Prenatal Genetic Screening and Testing in Twin Pregnancies. J Genet Couns. 2018; 27(5):1238-1247. DOI: 10.1007/s10897-018-0246-4. View