» Articles » PMID: 36653738

Decision-making Process About Prenatal Genetic Screening: How Deeply Do Moms-to-be Want to Know from Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing?

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2023 Jan 18
PMID 36653738
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Prenatal information may be obtained through invasive diagnostic procedures and non-invasive screening procedures. Several psychological factors are involved in the decision to undergo a non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) but little is known about the decision-making strategies involved in choosing a specific level of in-depth NIPT, considering the increased availability and complexity of NIPT options. The main aim of this work is to assess the impact of psychological factors (anxiety about pregnancy, perception of risk in pregnancy, intolerance to uncertainty), and COVID-19 pandemic on the type of NIPT chosen, in terms of the number of conditions that are tested.

Methods: A self-administered survey evaluated the decision-making process about NIPT. The final sample comprised 191 women (M = 35.53; SD = 4.79) who underwent a NIPT from one private Italian genetic company. Based on the test date, the sample of women was divided between "NIPT before COVID-19" and "NIPT during COVID-19".

Results: Almost all of the participants reported being aware of the existence of different types of NIPT and more than half reported having been informed by their gynecologist. Results showed no significant association between the period in which women underwent NIPT (before COVID-19 or during COVID-19) and the preferences for more expanded screening panel. Furthermore, regarding psychological variables, results showed a significant difference between perceived risk for the fetus based on the NIPT type groups, revealing that pregnant women who underwent the more expanded panel had a significantly higher level of perceived risk for the fetus than that reported by pregnant women who underwent the basic one. There was no statistically significant difference between the other psychological variables and NIPT type.

Conclusions: Our findings indicate the paramount role of gynecologist and other health care providers, such as geneticists and psychologists, is to support decision-making process in NIPT, in order to overcome people's deficits in genetic knowledge, promote awareness about their preferences, and control anxiety related to the unborn child. Decision-support strategies are critical during the onset of prenatal care, according to the advances in prenatal genomics and to parent's needs.

Citing Articles

The role of patient-reported experiences in disclosing genetic prenatal testing: Findings from a large-scale survey on pregnant women.

Ferrari A, Pennestri F, Bonciani M, Banfi G, Vainieri M, Tomaiuolo R Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X. 2024; 23:100327.

PMID: 39130210 PMC: 11315116. DOI: 10.1016/j.eurox.2024.100327.


Implementation of an Enhanced Prenatal Checklist to Increase Rates of Counseling of Prenatal Fetal Aneuploidy Testing.

Cochrane E, Wetzler S, Tavella N, Lieb W, Strong N Cureus. 2024; 16(6):e61654.

PMID: 38841293 PMC: 11151179. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.61654.


Understanding knowledge, perception, and willingness of non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy: a survey among Chinese high-risk pregnant women.

Zhao Y, Xue Z, Geng Y, Zhu J, Hu M, Jiang M Front Med (Lausanne). 2023; 10:1232942.

PMID: 37908853 PMC: 10613663. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1232942.


Women's experiences with non-invasive prenatal testing in Switzerland: a qualitative analysis.

Tyebally Fang M, Germani F, Spitale G, Wascher S, Kunz L, Biller-Andorno N BMC Med Ethics. 2023; 24(1):85.

PMID: 37872496 PMC: 10594794. DOI: 10.1186/s12910-023-00964-3.

References
1.
Skutilova V . Knowledge, attitudes and decision-making in Czech women with atypical results of prenatal screening tests for the most common chromosomal and morphological congenital defects in the fetus: selected questionnaire results. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2013; 159(1):156-62. DOI: 10.5507/bp.2013.046. View

2.
Oliveri S, Pravettoni G, Fioretti C, Hansson M . Let the Individuals Directly Concerned Decide: A Solution to Tragic Choices in Genetic Risk Information. Public Health Genomics. 2016; 19(5):307-13. DOI: 10.1159/000448913. View

3.
Oliveri S, Cincidda C, Ongaro G, Cutica I, Gorini A, Spinella F . What people really change after genetic testing (GT) performed in private labs: results from an Italian study. Eur J Hum Genet. 2021; 30(1):62-72. PMC: 8738765. DOI: 10.1038/s41431-021-00879-w. View

4.
van Schendel R, Page-Christiaens G, Beulen L, Bilardo C, de Boer M, Coumans A . Women's Experience with Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing and Emotional Well-being and Satisfaction after Test-Results. J Genet Couns. 2017; 26(6):1348-1356. PMC: 5672853. DOI: 10.1007/s10897-017-0118-3. View

5.
Grinshpun-Cohen J, Miron-Shatz T, Berkenstet M, Pras E . The limited effect of information on Israeli pregnant women at advanced maternal age who decide to undergo amniocentesis. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2015; 4:23. PMC: 4538760. DOI: 10.1186/s13584-015-0019-6. View