Negotiating Awareness: Dutch Midwives' Experiences of Noninvasive Prenatal Screening Counseling

Overview

Journal Int J Environ Res Public Health

Publisher MDPI

Specialties Environmental Health
Public Health

Date 2022 Nov 26

PMID 36430001

Authors

Marieke de Vries

Danique Oostdijk

Kim G T Janssen

Raymond De Vries

Jose Sanders

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Discussion of the topic of noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) has become a standard part of Dutch maternity care practice. This means that pregnant women who are contemplating NIPS can receive counseling from their midwife or obstetrician. The aim of this study is to understand the communicative practices and decision-making principles regarding first-tier use of NIPS, as experienced by Dutch midwives.

Methods: Qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews with Dutch midwives (n = 10) exploring their conversations about NIPS counseling and decision making.

Results: Midwives value the autonomy of women in decisions on NIPS. They consider it a midwifery task to assess women's awareness of the risks and implications of using or not using this mode of screening. The optimal level of awareness may differ between women and midwives, creating novel challenges for informed decision making in midwifery communication.

Key Conclusions And Implications For Practice: Negotiating awareness about NIPS in individual women is a relatively new and complex midwifery task in need of counseling time and skill. NIPS practices call for a reflection on midwifery values in the context of integrated maternity care.

References

Sanders P, de Vries P, Besseling S, Nieuwenhuijze P . 'Such a waste' - conflicting communicative roles of Dutch midwifery students in childbirth decision making. Midwifery. 2018; 64:115-121. DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2018.06.007. View

Martin L, Hutton E, Spelten E, Gitsels-van der Wal J, van Dulmen S . Midwives' views on appropriate antenatal counselling for congenital anomaly tests: do they match clients' preferences?. Midwifery. 2013; 30(6):600-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2013.08.012. View

Lippke S, Derksen C, Keller F, Kotting L, Schmiedhofer M, Welp A . Effectiveness of Communication Interventions in Obstetrics-A Systematic Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18(5). PMC: 7967656. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18052616. View

Mestdagh E, Timmermans O, Fontein-Kuipers Y, Van Rompaey B . Proactive behaviour in midwifery practice: A qualitative overview based on midwives' perspectives. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2019; 20:87-92. DOI: 10.1016/j.srhc.2019.04.002. View

Suleiman-Martos N, Albendin-Garcia L, Gomez-Urquiza J, Vargas-Roman K, Ramirez-Baena L, Ortega-Campos E . Prevalence and Predictors of Burnout in Midwives: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17(2). PMC: 7013833. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17020641. View

Kater-Kuipers A, Bakkeren I, Riedijk S, Go A, Polak M, Galjaard R . Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): societal pressure or freedom of choice? A vignette study of Dutch citizens' attitudes. Eur J Hum Genet. 2020; 29(1):2-10. PMC: 7853136. DOI: 10.1038/s41431-020-0686-9. View

Darling F, McCourt P, Cartwright D . Facilitators and barriers to the implementation of a physiological approach during labour and birth: A systematic review and thematic synthesis. Midwifery. 2020; 92:102861. DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2020.102861. View

Bakkeren I, Kater-Kuipers A, Bunnik E, Go A, Tibben A, DE Beaufort I . Implementing non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in the Netherlands: An interview study exploring opinions about and experiences with societal pressure, reimbursement, and an expanding scope. J Genet Couns. 2019; 29(1):112-121. PMC: 7041621. DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1188. View

van der Pijl M, Kasperink M, Hollander M, Verhoeven C, Kingma E, de Jonge A . Client-care provider interaction during labour and birth as experienced by women: Respect, communication, confidentiality and autonomy. PLoS One. 2021; 16(2):e0246697. PMC: 7880498. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246697. View

10.

Foster W, McKellar L, Fleet J, Sweet L . Moral distress in midwifery practice: A concept analysis. Nurs Ethics. 2021; 29(2):364-383. DOI: 10.1177/09697330211023983. View

11.

Jefford E, Jomeen J, Wallin M . Midwifery abdication - is it acknowledged or discussed within the midwifery literature: An integrative review. Eur J Midwifery. 2021; 2:6. PMC: 7846030. DOI: 10.18332/ejm/92529. View

12.

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J . Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007; 19(6):349-57. DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042. View

13.

Oelhafen S, Monteverde S, Cignacco E . Exploring moral problems and moral competences in midwifery: A qualitative study. Nurs Ethics. 2018; 26(5):1373-1386. DOI: 10.1177/0969733018761174. View

14.

van Bruggen M, Henneman L, Timmermans D . Women's decision making regarding prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy: A qualitative comparison between 2003 and 2016. Midwifery. 2018; 64:93-100. DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2018.06.010. View

15.

Bilardo C . The implementation of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in the Netherlands. J Perinat Med. 2021; 49(8):941-944. DOI: 10.1515/jpm-2021-0290. View

16.

Martin L, Gitsels-van der Wal J, de Boer M, Vanstone M, Henneman L . Introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing as a first-tier aneuploidy screening test: A survey among Dutch midwives about their role as counsellors. Midwifery. 2017; 56:1-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2017.09.008. View

17.

Martin L, Gitsels-van der Wal J, Bax C, Pieters M, Reijerink-Verheij J, Galjaard R . Nationwide implementation of the non-invasive prenatal test: Evaluation of a blended learning program for counselors. PLoS One. 2022; 17(5):e0267865. PMC: 9060360. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267865. View

18.

Deans Z, Clarke A, Newson A . For your interest? The ethical acceptability of using non-invasive prenatal testing to test 'purely for information'. Bioethics. 2014; 29(1):19-25. DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12125. View

19.

Cernat A, De Freitas C, Majid U, Trivedi F, Higgins C, Vanstone M . Facilitating informed choice about non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis of women's experiences. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019; 19(1):27. PMC: 6332899. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-018-2168-4. View

20.

Garcia E, Henneman L, Gitsels-van der Wal J, Martin L, Koopmanschap I, Bekker M . Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and pregnant women's views on good motherhood: a qualitative study. Eur J Hum Genet. 2021; 30(6):669-675. PMC: 9177610. DOI: 10.1038/s41431-021-00945-3. View