"Don't Want No Risk and Don't Want No Problems": Public Understandings of the Risks and Benefits of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing in the United States

Never "totally prepared": Support groups on helping families prepare for a child with a genetic condition

A rapid increase in the reach and breadth of prenatal genetic screening and testing has led to an expanding need for prenatal support of families receiving this genetic information. As part of a larger study investigating prenatal preparation for a child with a genetic condition, we interviewed representatives of patient advocacy groups (PAGs) who support parents post-diagnosis. Groups supporting families with Down syndrome were often local or regional, while other groups were often national or international in scope. Groups varied in their willingness or ability to support families prior to making a pregnancy continuation decision, and participants reflected on ways they addressed these needs with individual counseling and referrals, if needed. Participants described supporting parents with information about conditions and a range of lived experiences for families, while referring families to healthcare professionals for technical questions and additional medical needs. PAGs also prioritized connecting parents experiencing a new diagnosis with other families for peer support and community-building, both in person and on social media. Participants discussed limitations, such as a lack of racially-concordant support, ability to offer resources in languages other than English, and a lack of funding to meet the expressed needs of families post-diagnosis. Overall, participants emphasized that the parenting experience of each child is unique, irrespective of a genetic diagnosis, an experience for which parents can never be "totally prepared."

Patient perspectives on noninvasive prenatal testing among black women in the United States: a scoping review

Advances in reproductive health technologies such as noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) are changing the landscape of prenatal care and maternal health. NIPT, made clinically available in the United States (US) in 2011, is a screening test that utilizes cell-free DNA (cfDNA) to detect for aneuploidies and genetic characteristics in fetal DNA. In September 2020, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommended NIPT for all pregnant patients regardless of age or risk factors. We examined peer-reviewed, empirical studies published from January 2011 to February 2022, assessing NIPT studies with patient perspectives in the US and what is known about how empirical studies include Black women. Our scoping review draws from PubMed (with advanced MeSH search options) and Scopus databases for advanced scoping review, with 33 articles meeting our criteria. Empirical studies on NIPT show patient perceptions range across five themes: 1) accuracy / safety, 2) return of results, 3) patient knowledge, 4) informed consent, and 5) perceptions among minoritized groups (with perceptions of race and gender as a social demographic intersection). Additionally, among the 15 studies that included that Black woman in their study sample, none measured the perceptions of Black women with genetic conditions. Bridging this knowledge gap is critical because NIPT is becoming increasingly accessible across the nation and is being developed to screen for additional genetic conditions, such as sickle cell disease. Ultimately, NIPT researchers need to go to greater lengths to examine the patient perspectives of Black women with and without genetic conditions.

Resistance to Change

Advances in medical technology do not follow a smooth process and are highly variable. Implementation can occasionally be rapid, but often faces varying degrees of resistance resulting at the very least in delayed implementation. Using qualitative comparative analysis, we have evaluated numerous technological advances from the perspective of how they were introduced, implemented, and opposed. Resistance varies from benign - often happening because of inertia or lack of resources to more active forms, including outright opposition using both appropriate and inappropriate methods to resist/delay changes in care. Today, even public health has become politicized, having nothing to do with the underlying science, but having catastrophic results. Two other corroding influences are marketing pressure from the private sector and vested interests in favor of one outcome or another. This also applies to governmental agencies. There are a number of ways in which papers have been buried including putting the thumb on the scale where reviewers can sabotage new ideas. Unless we learn to harness new technologies earlier in their life course and understand how to maneuver around the pillars of obstruction to their implementation, we will not be able to provide medical care at the forefront of technological capabilities.

Is preparation a good reason for prenatal genetic testing? Ethical and critical questions

As prenatal genetic testing technologies have become both easier and more accessible, women are increasingly choosing prenatal genetic testing for a reason that is largely unexamined in the clinical literature: preparation. This reasoning, offered not only from pregnant women but frequently from testing laboratories and health care providers, reflects long-held assumptions that prenatal genetic results-properly delivered and followed with information, clinical surveillance, and/or social supports-prepare families for a child with a genetic condition, and even improve health and social outcomes for children and families. But these assumptions remain unexamined, since there are no clear definitions or recommendations for prenatal preparation. Preparation may refer to several overlapping ways in which prenatal information may change parents' approach to the rest of the pregnancy, including: (a) clinical activities, including surveillance, interventions, and delivery planning; (b) social and informational support, such as interacting with patient support groups and gathering information about quality of life; and (c) psychological "coping" or adjustments to the reality of raising a child with a genetic condition. These meanings and activities intersect and influence one another and form a foundation for postnatal family adaptation, but they are rarely parsed out in studies examining the impact of prenatal diagnosis. Based on previous work delineating conceptual models as middle terms between theory and reality, we are building a conceptual model that incorporates an empirical understanding of meanings and actions encompassed by prenatal preparation. Comparing diverse families' expectations with the resources they are offered can identify (mis)matches between priorities and approaches.

The Emergence and Global Spread of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing

Since its introduction in 2011, noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has spread rapidly around the world. It carries numerous benefits but also raises challenges, often related to sociocultural, legal, and economic contexts. This article describes the implementation of NIPT in nine countries, each with its own unique characteristics: Australia, Canada, China and Hong Kong, India, Israel, Lebanon, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Themes covered for each country include the structure of the healthcare system, how NIPT is offered, counseling needs and resources, and cultural and legal context regarding disability and pregnancytermination. Some common issues emerge, including cost as a barrier to equitable access, the complexity of decision-making about public funding, and a shortage of appropriate resources that promote informed choice. Conversely, sociocultural values that underlie the use of NIPT vary greatly among countries. The issues described will become even more challenging as NIPT evolves from a second-tier to a first-tier screening test with expanded use.

Testing Times: The Social Life of Non-invasive Prenatal Testing

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is a genomic technology used to predict the chance of a foetus having a genetic condition. Despite the immediacy of this technology’s integration into clinical practice, there is a dearth of evidence outlining how both patients and professionals experience NIPT on the ground. In this article, we draw upon our collective empirical research—specifically on earlier screening technologies (BKR), Down syndrome screening (GT), genetic screening/testing (JL) and NIPT (HS)—to outline the most pressing and often controversial issues which, we argue, remain unresolved and vital to consider regarding NIPT. We begin with a brief introduction to NIPT as a prenatal technology and the bodies of literature which unpack its ‘social life’. In what follows, BKR discusses NIPT within the context of her research on ‘the tentative pregnancy’ and diagnostic testing in the USA. In the following sections, GT, HS and JL identify different, but related, concerns with respect to NIPT, particularly around routinisation, commercialisation, choice, abortion, and configurations of disability and ‘normalcy’.

The Knowledge, Attitude, Practices, and Satisfaction of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing among Chinese Pregnant Women under Different Payment Schemes: A Comparative Study

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for aneuploidy screening has been widely applied across China, and costs can affect Chinese pregnant women’s choices. This study aims to assess the knowledge, attitude, practices (KAP) and satisfaction regarding NIPT among pregnant women in China, and to further explore the relationship between payment schemes and women’s acceptability of and satisfaction with NIPT. A questionnaire survey was performed in Shenzhen and Zhengzhou, China, which separately applied “insurance coverage” and “out-of-pocket” payment scheme for NIPT. The major differences between the two cities were compared using chi-square test, Wilcoxon rank sum test, and propensity score matched analysis. Logistic regression models were applied to explore predictors for women’s acceptability and satisfaction. Compared with Zhengzhou participants, a higher proportion of Shenzhen women had heard of NIPT (87.30% vs. 64.03%), were willing to receive NIPT (91.80% vs. 80.43%) and had taken NIPT (83.12% vs. 54.54%), while their satisfaction level was lower. Having NIPT-related knowledge was associated with higher acceptability, and receiving genetic counseling helped to improve satisfaction. Besides, women with higher annual household incomes were more likely to take and be satisfied with NIPT. In conclusion, more attention should be paid to health education, subsidies for NIPT, and genetic counseling.

Women's decisional conflict in the pathway of prenatal screening and testing: an explorative study within Finnish public maternity care

Objectives To explore women's decisional conflict in the pathway of prenatal screening and testing (PreST) in Finland and to evaluate a counseling service. Methods Self-completion surveys were conducted at two medical settings (screening and further testing) of PreST. Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) was the main measure. Different types of statistical tests were used to compare women's decisional conflict at different medical settings of PreST, and before-after pre-test counseling. Multivariable linear regressions analyzed the influences of the medical settings and other factors on women's decisional conflict. Results Compared to women in population-based screening, women in further testing (before pre-test counseling) were more likely to feel well informed (P < 0.001), had increased values clarity (P < 0.001), but more likely experienced uncertainty (P = 0.040). Besides medical settings, maternal age, gravidity and previous experience of fetal aneuploidy significantly influenced decisional conflict. After counseling, screen-positive women felt better informed (P < 0.001), had increased values clarity (P < 0.001), perceived more support (P < 0.001), and had better decision certainty (P < 0.001) than before counseling. Conclusions Medical settings influence women's decisional conflict during PreST. Individual counseling is effective in improving screen-positive women's decisional conflict. This research adds knowledge and experience on developing decision-making supports across the pathway of PreST.

Decisional regret in women receiving high risk or inconclusive prenatal cell-free DNA screening results

Objectives: This study examined the experiences of women receiving high-risk cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening results, with particular focus on decisional satisfaction after receiving high-risk, false, or inconclusive results. It is already known that cell-free DNA screening is rapidly expanding in the clinical practice. A growing number of women are offered cfDNA screening for an increasingly broad range of chromosomal and microdeletion syndromes. However, research shows that the very low false positive rate attributed to cfDNA screening for trisomy 21 does not apply to other conditions.Methods: As a part of the larger study on patient experiences, 40 semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with women who were, or had recently been, pregnant and received high-risk (n = 15), false positive/negative (n = 20), or inconclusive (n = 5) results from cfDNA screening.Results: One third of participants would not elect to have cfDNA screening in a future pregnancy, and another third would only have the screen under particular circumstances or if the scope of the panel was limited. Many women reported feeling misled by the information they received prior to accepting cfDNA screening or receiving their results.Conclusions: Study participants described issues with the clinical dialog when cfDNA screening is offered; when results are returned; and problems with the availability of information about the existence of false positives. These reports suggest that inadequate pretest discussion contributes to women's experience of decisional regret after receiving high-risk, false positive, or inconclusive results. Given the confusion about cfDNA screening accuracy, the prevalence of follow-up invasive tests, and the number of women who reported that they regretted choosing cfDNA screening, the mode of offering cfDNA should be reassessed.

'Small cost to pay for peace of mind': Women's experiences with non-invasive prenatal testing

Background

Non‐invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has been available in Australia on a user‐pays basis since 2012. Since its introduction, it has grown in popularity as a screening method for fetal aneuploidy and may become publicly funded.

Aims

To assess the motivations and experiences of women who have undergone NIPT in a user‐pays system in Australia.

Materials and methods

One thousand women who had undergone NIPT through the Victorian Clinical Genetics Services in Melbourne, Australia were contacted and asked to complete a mixed‐methods survey. The number of eligible responses received was 235. Quantitative data analysis was performed in STATA IC 15.1, and qualitative data were examined using content analysis.

Results

Women reported generally positive experiences with NIPT and 95% of respondents indicated they would undergo NIPT in a future pregnancy. Most respondents received a low‐risk result, with 2.2% receiving a high‐risk result. Respondents viewed NIPT favourably compared to invasive testing and cited reassurance as a key reason they sought it. However, a small minority of women reported negative experiences with the testing process. Women were also supportive of NIPT becoming publicly funded, with 93% of respondents indicating support. Pre‐ and post‐test counselling were identified as possible areas for improvement to ensure informed consent.

Conclusion

In support of the existing literature, these results indicate that Australian women generally report positive experiences with NIPT. As NIPT becomes more common, with possible integration into public healthcare, further qualitative research would be valuable to examine the motivations and experiences of women undergoing NIPT.

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Women Toward Prenatal Genetic Testing

Objectives:

We aim to address public knowledge, attitudes, and practices relative to prenatal genetic testing as a starting point for policy development in Jordan.

Study design:

We conducted a cross-sectional prenatal genetic testing knowledge, attitudes, and practices survey with 1111 women recruited at obstetrics and gynecology clinics nationwide. Data were analyzed using a variety of descriptive and inferential statistical tests.

Results:

The overwhelming majority (>94%) of participants considered prenatal genetic testing, particularly non-invasive prenatal genetic screening, procedures to be good, comfortable, and reasonable, even when the non-diagnostic nature of non-invasive prenatal genetic screening was explained. Likewise, 95% encouraged the implementation of non-invasive prenatal genetic screening within the Jordanian health system, but most preferred it to remain optional. However, women in higher-risk age brackets, in consanguineous marriages, and with less education were significantly less interested in learning about non-invasive prenatal genetic screening. Only 60% of women interviewed were satisfied with the services provided by their obstetric/gynecologist. The more satisfied the women were, the more they are likely to adapt non-invasive prenatal genetic screening.

Conclusions:

In sum, although the data support the receptivity of Jordanian women to national implementation of non-invasive prenatal genetic screening, such policies should be accompanied by health education to increase the genetic literacy of the population and to engage high-risk populations. Thus, this offers rare insight into the readiness of 1 particular Arab population to adapt non-invasive prenatal genetic screening technologies.

Key Ethical Issues in Prenatal Genetics: An Overview

The clinical integration of prenatal genetic technologies raises a series of important medical and ethical considerations for patients, families, health care providers, health care systems, and society. It is critical to recognize, understand, and address these issues in conjunction with the continued development of new prenatal genetic screens and tests. This article discusses some of the lead ethical issues as a starting point to further understanding their ramifications on patients, families, communities, and health care providers.

Considering medical risk information and communicating values: A mixed-method study of women's choice in prenatal testing

Introduction

Nowadays, an important decision for pregnant women is whether to undergo prenatal testing for aneuploidies and which tests to uptake. We investigate the factors influencing women’s choices between non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and invasive prenatal tests in pregnancies with elevated a priori risk of fetal aneuploidies.

Methodology

This is a mixed-method study. We used medical data (1st Jan 2015-31st Dec 2015) about women participating in further testing at Fetomaternal Medical Center at Helsinki University Hospital and employed Chi-square tests and ANOVA to compare the groups of women choosing different methods. Multinomial logistic regressions revealed the significant clinical factors influencing women’s choice. We explored the underlying values, beliefs, attitudes and other psychosocial factors that affect women’s choice by interviewing women with the Theory of Planned Behavior framework. The semi-structured interview data were processed by thematic analysis.

Results

Statistical data indicated that gestational age and counseling day were strong factors influencing women’s choice. Interview data revealed that women’s values and moral principles on pregnancy and childbirth chiefly determined the choices. Behavioral beliefs (e.g. safety and accuracy) and perceived choice control (e.g. easiness, rapidness and convenience) were also important and the major trade-offs happened between these constructs.

Discussion

Values are the determinants of women’s choice. Service availability and convenience are strong factors. Medical risk status in this choice context is not highly influential. Choice aids can be developed by helping women to identify their leading values in prenatal testing and by providing lists of value-matching test options and attributes.

Spanish- and English-Speaking Pregnant Women's Views on cfDNA and Other Prenatal Screening: Practical and Ethical Reflections

The rapid clinical implementation of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening, a non-invasive method of prenatal genetic screening, has outpaced research on its social and ethical implications. This study is the first to compare the ethical and practical views of Spanish- and English-speaking pregnant women in the United States about cfDNA screening. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with diverse Spanish- and English-speaking women who had received prenatal care at a large academic medical center. Of the 24 interviewees, ten were Latinas who were interviewed in Spanish; English-language interviews were conducted with seven non-Hispanic Asian and seven non-Hispanic White women. Participants held positive opinions concerning the accuracy of cfDNA screening and often noted that it would enhance preparedness. Participants also expressed concerns about the possibility of inaccurate results and the potentially negative effects of cfDNA screening on the experience of pregnancy. Differences emerged between Spanish and English speakers in their portrayals of their relationships with prenatal health care providers, the extent to which they questioned providers' advice, their ethical concerns, and their informational needs. We emphasize the importance of customizing prenatal test counseling to the needs of the individual patient, providing educationally appropriate counseling and literature, and mitigating potential language barriers.