Ethics of routine: a critical analysis of the concept of 'routinisation' in prenatal screening

Should non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) be used for fetal sex determination? Perspectives and experiences of healthcare professionals

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) can not only accurately detect early in pregnancy the presence of chromosomal abnormalities but also fetal sex. However, whether fetal sex should be reported after performing NIPT is ethically contentious. In Belgium, NIPT is practically fully reimbursed and offered to all pregnant women as a first-tier screening. In practice, fetal sex is reported upon request of the expectant parents; however, this is not stipulated in guidelines. As more countries are offering NIPT and looking to implement it in public healthcare, challenges and insights of healthcare professionals working in Belgium can be of value for others. We assessed healthcare professionals' experiences with and perspectives on sex determination and reporting following NIPT in Belgium by conducting a semi-structured interview study. We interviewed 30 professionals involved in prenatal screening. While overall healthcare professionals did not consider reporting fetal sex to be an issue if the expectant parents want to know, some consider the reporting of a non-medical trait like fetal sex problematic when it is reimbursed or if it could lead to sex-selective termination of pregnancy. Moreover, the strong desire of expectant parents to know fetal sex risks compromising informed decision-making about NIPT. In this way, fetal sex may distract from the primary aim of NIPT as a test for medical conditions. Improving pre-test counseling both in terms of quality and availability may help overcome some of these issues.

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): is routinization problematic?

BACKGROUND

The introduction and wide application of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has triggered further evolution of routines in the practice of prenatal diagnosis. 'Routinization' of prenatal diagnosis however has been associated with hampered informed choice and eugenic attitudes or outcomes. It is viewed, at least in some countries, with great suspicion in both bioethics and public discourse. However, it is a heterogeneous phenomenon that needs to be scrutinized in the wider context of social practices of reproductive genetics. In different countries with their different regulatory frameworks, different patterns of routines emerge that have different ethical implications. This paper discusses an ethics of routines informed by the perspectives of organizational sociology and psychology, where a routine is defined as a repetitive, recognizable pattern of interdependent organizational actions that is carried out by multiple performers. We favour a process approach that debunks the view - which gives way to most of the concerns - that routines are always blindly performed. If this is so, routines are therefore not necessarily incompatible with responsible decision-making. Free and informed decision-making can, as we argue, be a key criterion for the ethical evaluation of testing routines. If free and informed decision-making by each pregnant woman is the objective, routines in prenatal testing may not be ethically problematic, but rather are defensible and helpful. We compare recent experiences of NIPT routines in the context of prenatal screening programmes in Germany, Israel and the Netherlands. Notable variation can be observed between these three countries (i) in the levels of routinization around NIPT, (ii) in the scope of routinization, and (iii) in public attitudes toward routinized prenatal testing.

CONCLUSION

An ethics of routines in the field of prenatal diagnostics should incorporate and work with the necessary distinctions between levels and forms of routines, in order to develop sound criteria for their evaluation.

Informed choice and routinization of the second-trimester anomaly scan: a national cohort study in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Since 2007 all pregnant women in the Netherlands are offered the second-trimester anomaly scan (SAS) in a nationwide prenatal screening program. This study aims to assess the level of informed choice of women opting for the SAS and to evaluate the presence of routinization 16 years after its implementation. It further explores decisional conflict and women's decision making.

METHODS

This prospective national survey study consisted of an online questionnaire which was completed after prenatal counseling and before undergoing the SAS. Informed choice was measured by the adapted multidimensional measure of informed choice (MMIC) and was defined in case women were classified as value-consistent, if their decision for the SAS was deliberated and made with sufficient knowledge.

RESULTS

A total of 894/1167 (76.6%) women completed the questionnaire. Overall, 54.8% made an informed choice, 89.6% had good knowledge, 59.8% had deliberated their choice and 92.7% held a positive attitude towards the SAS. Women with low educational attainment (p=0.004) or respondents of non-Western descent (p=0.038) were less likely to make an informed choice. Decisional conflict was low, with a significantly lower decisional conflict score in women that made an informed choice (p<0.001). Most respondents (97.9%) did not perceive pressure to undergo the SAS.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed a relatively low rate of informed choice for the SAS, due to absence of deliberation. Therefore, some routinization seem to be present in the Netherlands. However, most women had sufficient knowledge, did not perceive pressure and experienced low decisional conflict.

Financial contribution as reason to opt out of non-invasive prenatal testing

OBJECTIVE

First trimester non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) provides pregnant women with a reliable, non-invasive method to screen for fetal aneuploidies. In the Netherlands, there is a nationwide prenatal screening program in which pregnant women and their partners are counseled about their options around 10 weeks of pregnancy. The first trimester and second trimester scan are fully reimbursed but the NIPT has an own financial contribution of €175 per participant, irrespective of type of insurance. The arguments for this own contribution are fear of uncritical use of NIPT or routinization. NIPT has a relatively stable uptake of 51%, against over 95% for second trimester anomaly scan. We aimed to explore the effect of this financial contribution on the decision to opt out of NIPT.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a survey among 350 pregnant women undergoing a second trimester anomaly scan in our center, Amsterdam UMC, between January 2021 and April 2022. All pregnant women who declined NIPT in the first trimester, were asked to participate and answered 11-13 questions about the decision-making process, the reasons to opt out and the financial contribution.

RESULTS

Information about NIPT was desired in 92% of women and 96% felt sufficiently informed. Most women took the decision not to perform NIPT with their partner and did not experience difficulties in taking this decision. The most important reason to decline NIPT was: "Every child is welcome" (69%). "The test was too expensive" was answered in 12% and was significantly correlated with lower maternal age. Additionally, one in five women (19%) said they would have done NIPT if it had been for free, which was significantly higher in younger women.

CONCLUSIONS

The own financial contribution plays a role in the decision-making to decline NIPT and partly explains the low uptake in the Netherlands. This suggests that there is no equal access to fetal aneuploidy screening. To overcome this inequality, this own contribution should be abandoned. We speculate that this will have a positive effect on the uptake, which will increase to at least 70% and potentially 94%.

Societal implications of expanded universal carrier screening: a scoping review

Carrier screening aims to identify couples at risk of conceiving children with a recessive condition. Until recently, carrier screening was primarily offered ancestry-based. Technological advances now facilitate expanded universal carrier screening (EUCS). This scoping review aimed to map EUCS's potential societal implications based on both theoretical studies and empirical evidence. To this aim, we performed a CoCites search to find relevant articles, including articles describing carrier screening for at-risk populations, based on five selected query articles. Forty articles were included. Three main potential societal implications were identified: (1) unwanted medicalization, (2) stigmatization and discrimination of carriers and people affected with the conditions screened and (3) challenges in achieving equitable access. Within these themes, potential positive implications are reduction of ethnic stigmatization in ancestry-based offers and increased equity. Potential negative implications are reinforcement of disability-based stigmatization, less possibility for developing expertise in healthcare and societal pressure to partake in screening. Empirical evidence on all these implications is however scarce. In conclusion, both positive and negative potential societal implications of implementing EUCS, primarily theoretical, were identified, even in at-risk groups where evidence is mostly lacking. Empirical research in EUCS pilots is needed to identify which societal implications are likely to occur and therefore should be overcome when implementing EUCS.

Patient attitudes and preferences about expanded noninvasive prenatal testing

Introduction: Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) using cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is typically carried out to screen for common fetal chromosomal anomalies, with the option to screen for a wider range of chromosomal changes (expanded NIPT) becoming increasingly available. However, little is known about pregnant patients' attitudes and preferences regarding expanded NIPT. Methods: To address this gap, we surveyed general-risk patients having first-tier cfDNA screening at a private prenatal clinic on their expectations for expanded NIPT. Patients were asked questions regarding their current pregnancy and previous pregnancy history, their opinions on fetal DNA screenings during pregnancy and incidental findings, information and opinions on financial resources for NIPT, as well as socio-cultural questions to determine patient demographics. Results: Of the 200 survey participants, the majority were educated, self-reported as white, had a higher than average income, and reported no aneuploidy risk factors. When asked what information they would like to receive from cfDNA screening, the vast majority of participants wanted all information available that could have an immediate impact on fetal health (88%) or an immediate impact on infant health from birth (82%). Many participants also wanted information that could have a future impact on the child's health or an immediate or future impact on the pregnant woman's own health. Most participants wanted information about the sex of fetus (86%) and common trisomies (71%), with almost half of participants desiring information about rare autosomal aneuploidies and/or all genetic information that may affect the baby. In addition, participants were found to be comfortable screening for conditions that are well-known, influence care during pregnancy, and are treatable. Finally, while most respondents either had insurance coverage for NIPT or were able to afford NIPT out of pocket, the majority of our participants felt that expanded NIPT should be either free for everyone or for those considered high risk. Discussion: Our findings suggest that with appropriate pre-test counseling, pregnant patients may choose NIPT for an expanding list of conditions.

Non-invasive prenatal testing in Germany: a unique ethical and policy landscape

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has been available commercially in Europe since approximately 2012. Currently, many countries are in the process of integrating NIPT into their publicly funded healthcare systems to screen for chromosomal aneuploidies such as trisomy 21 (Down syndrome), with a variety of implementation models. In 2019, the German Federal Joint Committee (G-BA), which plays a significant role in overseeing healthcare decisions in Germany, recommended that NIPT be reimbursed through public insurance. Following this recommendation, NIPT will be offered on a case-by-case basis, when a pregnant woman, after being counselled, makes an informed decision that the test is necessary in her personal situation. This model differs significantly from many other European countries, where NIPT is being implemented either as a first-tier screening offer available for all pregnancies, or a contingent screen for those with a high probability of foetal aneuploidy (with varying probability cut-offs). In this paper we examine how this unique approach to implementing NIPT in Germany is produced by an ethical and policy landscape resulting from a distinctive cultural and historical context with a significant influence on healthcare decision-making. Due in part to the specific legal and regulatory environment, as well as strong objections from various stakeholders, Germany did not implement NIPT as a first-tier screen. However, as Germany does not currently publicly fund as standard other forms of prenatal aneuploidy screening (such as combined first trimester screening), neither can it be implemented as a screen contingent on specific probability cut-offs. We discuss how German policy reflects the echoes of the past shaping approaches to new biotechnologies, and the implications of this unique model for implementing NIPT in a public healthcare system.

Reproductive carrier screening: responding to the eugenics critique

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RCS), when offered to anyone regardless of their family history or ancestry, has been subject to the critique that it is a form of eugenics. Eugenics describes a range of practices that seek to use the science of heredity to improve the genetic composition of a population group. The term is associated with a range of unethical programmes that were taken up in various countries during the 20th century. Contemporary practice in medical genetics has, understandably, distanced itself from such programmes. However, as RCS becomes more widespread, gains public funding and uses expanded gene panels, there are concerns that such programmes could be perceived as eugenic either in intent or outcome. The typical response to the eugenics critique of RCS is to emphasise the voluntary nature of both participating in screening and making subsequent reproductive choices. While safeguarding individuals' freedom to choose in relation to screening is essential, we consider this response inadequate. By examining the specific ethical wrongs committed by eugenics in the past, we argue that to avoid the perception of RCS being a form of eugenics it is essential to attend to the broader normative context in which reproductive decisions occur. Furthermore, ethical RCS programmes must recognise and respond to their potential to shift societal norms that shape individual reproductive choices.

Outcomes of Importance to Patients in Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening: A Qualitative Study to Inform a Core Outcome Set

There is significant heterogeneity in the outcomes assessed across studies of reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS). Only a small number of studies have measured patient-reported outcomes or included patients in the selection of outcomes that are meaningful to them. This study was a cross-sectional, qualitative study of 15 patient participants conducted to inform a core outcome set. A core outcome set is an approach to facilitate standardisation in outcome reporting, allowing direct comparison of outcomes across studies to enhance understanding of impacts and potential harms. The aim of this study was to incorporate the patient perspective in the development of a core outcome set by eliciting a detailed understanding of outcomes of importance to patients. Data were collected via online, semi-structured interviews using a novel method informed by co-design and the nominal group technique. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Outcomes elicited from patient stakeholder interviews highlighted several under-explored areas for future research. This includes the role of grief and loss in increased risk couples, the role of empowerment in conceptualising the utility of RGCS, the impact of societal context and barriers that contribute to negative experiences, and the role of genetic counselling in ensuring that information needs are met and informed choice facilitated as RGCS becomes increasingly routine. Future research should focus on incorporating outcomes that accurately reflect patient needs and experience.

Incorporating patient perspectives in the development of a core outcome set for reproductive genetic carrier screening: a sequential systematic review

There is currently no consensus on the key outcomes of reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS). This has led to a large amount of variability in approaches to research, limiting direct comparison and synthesis of findings. In a recently published systematic review of quantitative studies on RGCS, we found that few studies incorporated patient-reported outcomes. In response to this gap, we conducted a sequential systematic review of qualitative studies to identify outcomes exploring the patient experience of RGCS. In conjunction with the review of quantitative studies, these outcomes will be used to inform the development of a core outcome set. Text excerpts relevant to outcomes, including quotes and themes, were extracted verbatim and deductively coded as outcomes. We conducted a narrative synthesis to group outcomes within domains previously defined in our review of quantitative studies, and identify any new domains that were unique to qualitative studies. Seventy-eight outcomes were derived from qualitative studies and grouped into 19 outcome domains. Three new outcome domains were identified; 'goals of pre- and post-test genetic counselling', 'acceptability of further testing and alternative reproductive options', and 'perceived utility of RGCS'. The identification of outcome domains that were not identified in quantitative studies indicates that outcomes reflecting the patient perspective may be under-represented in the quantitative literature on this topic. Further work should focus on ensuring that outcomes reflect the real world needs and concerns of patients in order to maximise translation of research findings into clinical practice.

Multisite assessment of the impact of a prenatal testing educational App on patient knowledge and preparedness for prenatal testing decision making

In this study, we wanted to assess the impact of the use of a patient educational app on patient knowledge about noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and preparedness for prenatal screening decision-making. A randomized control study was carried out at three international sites between January 2019 and October 2020. Study participants completed a pre-consultation survey and post-consultation survey to assess knowledge, satisfaction, and preparedness for prenatal screening consultation. Providers completed a post-consultation survey. In the control arm, the pre-consultation survey was completed prior to consultation with their prenatal care provider. In the intervention arm, the pre-consultation survey was completed after using the app but prior to consultation with their prenatal care provider. Mean knowledge scores in the 203 participants using the app were significantly higher pre-consultation (p < 0.001) and post-consultation (p < 0.005) than those not using the app. Higher pre-consultation knowledge scores in the intervention group were observed at all sites. Most (86%) app users stated they were "Satisfied" or "Very Satisfied" with it as a tool. Providers rated the intervention group as more prepared than controls (p = 0.027); provider assessment of knowledge was not significantly different (p = 0.073). This study shows that clinical implementation of a patient educational app in a real-world setting was feasible, acceptable to pregnant people, and positively impacted patient knowledge.

Do non-invasive prenatal tests promote discrimination against people with Down syndrome? What should be done?

By implementation of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for the diagnosis of Down syndrome (DS) in maternity care, an ethical debate is newly inflamed how to deal with this information. Fears of the consequences of an increased use of NIPT are justified with the same arguments when amniocentesis and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) were introduced decades ago. It can be expected that the prevalence of people with DS would significantly increase in Western societies as a result of the increasing age of pregnant women and the improved medical care for people with DS. The net effect as to whether an increasing uptake of NIPT will result in more abortions of fetuses with trisomy 21 cannot be reliably estimated. This holds true since more and more couples will use results of NIPT for information only, but will not opt for termination of pregnancy. Although parents love their children with DS, in a society where reproductive autonomy is seen as an achievement, access to NIPT cannot be limited. On this background, comprehensive and qualified pretest counseling is vital, also to avoid possible stigmatization of people with DS and as the resulting consequence to avoid feared deterioration in their living conditions, for which, however, there is no evidence to date. The personal view of a mother of a child with DS illustrates the complexity in dealing with NIPT, which does not allow simple answers and must be understood as a challenge for society as a whole.

Making use of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): rethinking issues of routinization and pressure

First mapping the main ethical issues surrounding prenatal testing, we then analyze which concerns are specific to non-invasive methods. Presupposing the privatization premise for reproductive autonomy in fundamentally liberal societies, we go on to specify common concerns about non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) covered by the term 'routinization', and conceptually unravel the frequently expressed worry of increasing 'pressure' to test and/or terminate affected pregnancies. We argue that mindful decision-making should be a key educational goal (not only) of NIPT counseling which could be achieved through stepwise disclosure. In addition, we identify indirect social pressure as the most plausible threat to reproductive freedom. While continuous efforts need to be made to prevent such pressure - not least by ensuring balanced availability of options -, restricting testing options, and thus freedom of choice, cannot be the answer to this concern. Lastly, we suggest abandoning the vague term 'routinization' and instead focusing on specified concerns to enable a fruitful debate.

The implementation of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in the Netherlands

In the Netherlands prenatal screening is offered as a mean to increase reproductive choices of couples. All women are counseled on the existing options by trained midwives. The government puts a great emphasis on informed choice and on womens' opinions and reactions to screenings options. Since 2017 non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT, cf-DNA) is offered as first tier screening for aneuploidies in the genome-wide (GW) variant at the cost of 175 Euro's. Uptake is around 50%. This screenings offer is perceived as unconventional for the traditionally cautious Dutch system.

Routinization of prenatal screening with the non-invasive prenatal test: pregnant women's perspectives

Due to the favorable test characteristics of the non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) in the screening of fetal aneuploidy, there has been a strong and growing demand for implementation. In the Netherlands, NIPT is offered within a governmentally supported screening program as a first-tier screening test for all pregnant women (TRIDENT-2 study). However, concerns have been raised that the test’s favorable characteristics might lead to uncritical use, also referred to as routinization. This study addresses women’s perspectives on prenatal screening with NIPT by evaluating three aspects related to routinization: informed choice, freedom to choose and (personal and societal) perspectives on Down syndrome. Nationwide, a questionnaire was completed by 751 pregnant women after receiving counseling for prenatal screening. Of the respondents, the majority (75.5%) made an informed choice for prenatal screening as measured by the multidimensional measure of informed choice (MMIC). Education level and religious affiliation were significant predictors of informed choice. The main reason to accept screening was “seeking reassurance” (25.5%), and the main reason to decline was “every child is welcome” (30.6%). The majority of respondents (87.7%) did not perceive societal pressure to test. Differences between test-acceptors and test-decliners in personal and societal perspectives on Down syndrome were found. Our study revealed high rates of informed decision-making and perceived freedom to choose regarding fetal aneuploidy screening, suggesting that there is little reason for concern about routinization of NIPT based on the perspectives of Dutch pregnant women. Our findings highlight the importance of responsible implementation of NIPT within a national screening program.

Ethics of Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening: From the Clinic to the Population

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RCS) is increasingly being offered more widely, including to people with no family history or otherwise elevated chance of having a baby with a genetic condition. There are valid reasons to reject a prevention-focused public health ethics approach to such screening programs. Rejecting the prevention paradigm in this context has led to an emphasis on more individually-focused values of freedom of choice and fostering reproductive autonomy in RCS. We argue, however, that population-wide RCS has sufficient features in common with other public health screening programs that it becomes important also to attend to its public health implications. Not doing so constitutes a failure to address the social conditions that significantly affect people's capacity to exercise their reproductive autonomy. We discuss how a public health ethics approach to RCS is broader in focus than prevention. We also show that additional values inherent to ethical public health-such as equity and solidarity-are essential to underpin and inform the aims and implementation of reproductive carrier screening programs.

Does non-invasive prenatal testing affect the livebirth prevalence of Down syndrome in the Netherlands? A population-based register study

Objective

To evaluate if non‐invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) affects livebirth (LB) prevalence of Down syndrome (DS) in the Netherlands.

Method

Data from clinical genetics laboratories and the Working Party on Prenatal Diagnosis and Therapy (2014–2018) and previous published data (1991–2013) were used to assess trends for DS LB prevalence and reduction percentage (the net decrease in DS LBs resulting from selective termination of pregnancies). Statistics Netherlands provided general population data.

Results

DS LB prevalence increased from 11.6/10,000 in 1991 to 15.9/10,000 in 2002 (regression coefficient 0.246 [95% CI: 0.105–0.388; p = 0.003]). After 2002, LB prevalence decreased to 11.3/10,000 in 2014 and further to 9.9/10,000 in 2018 (regression coefficient 0.234 (95% CI: −0.338 to −0.131; p < 0.001). The reduction percentage increased from 26% in 1991 to 55.2% in 2018 (regression coefficient 0.012 (95% CI: 0.010–0.013; p < 0.001)). There were no trend changes after introducing NIPT as second‐tier (2014) and first‐tier test (2017).

Conclusions

Introducing NIPT did not change the decreasing trend in DS LB prevalence and increasing trend in reduction percentage. These trends may be caused by a broader development of more prenatal testing that had already started before introducing NIPT.

What's already known about this topic?

The introduction of NIPT changed the landscape in prenatal screening worldwide.

No long‐term population‐based study on the impact of NIPT on DS LB prevalence has been published.

What does this study add?

This study shows how to calculate DS LB prevalence in the absence of a national registration program.

Introducing NIPT caused no trend changes in DS LB prevalence and reduction percentage in the Netherlands.

Is routine prenatal screening and testing fundamentally incompatible with a commitment to reproductive choice? Learning from the historical context

An enduring ethical dispute accompanies prenatal screening and testing (PST) technologies. This ethical debate focuses on notions of reproductive choice. On one side of the dispute are those who have supported PST as a way to empower women's reproductive choice, while on the other side are those who argue that PST, particularly when made a routine part of prenatal care, limits deliberate choice. Empirical research does not resolve this ethical debate with evidence both of women for whom PST enhances their choices but also persistent evidence of recurrent problems between PST and women's autonomous decision-making. While there have been attempts to remove challenges to reproductive choice, it has been argued that these challenges cannot be removed entirely. In this paper I provide a historical review of PST technologies' development and in doing so provide a detailed insight into the root causes of this tension between the opposing sides of this debate. This historical account provides evidence that those who championed the early use of these technologies did so in order to achieve a number of wholly different goals other than women's choice and empowerment. These different aims focus on scientific discovery and eugenic goals and, I argue, are irreconcilable with women's choice and empowerment. It thus may not be surprising that the resulting practice of PST continues to resist compatibility with women's choice and empowerment. Ultimately, by understanding the historical foundations of PST we can more effectively assess how to reconcile women's reproductive autonomy with routine prenatal screening.

Uptake of fetal aneuploidy screening after the introduction of the non-invasive prenatal test: A national population-based register study

INTRODUCTION

The introduction of the non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) has shifted the prenatal screening landscape. Countries are exploring ways to integrate NIPT in their national prenatal screening programs, either as a first- or second-tier test. This study aimed to describe how the uptake of fetal aneuploidy screening changed after the introduction of NIPT as a second-tier and as a first-tier test within the national prenatal screening program of the Netherlands.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A population-based register study in the Netherlands, recording uptake of fetal aneuploidy screening. Data from all pregnant women choosing to have the first-trimester combined test (FCT) or first-tier NIPT between January 2007 and March 2019 were retrospectively collected using national registration systems. Uptake percentages for fetal aneuploidy screening (FCT and NIPT) were calculated and stratified by region and maternal age. Statistical significance was determined using trend analysis and chi-squared tests.

RESULTS

Between 2007 and 2013 FCT uptake increased from 14.8% to 29.5% (P = .004). In April 2014 NIPT was introduced as a second-tier test for high-risk women after FCT (TRIDENT-1 study). FCT uptake rose from 29.5% in 2013 to 34.2% in 2015 (P < .0001). After the introduction of NIPT as a first-tier test for all women in April 2017 (TRIDENT-2 study), FCT uptake declined significantly from 35.8% in 2016 to 2.6% in 2018 (P < .0001). NIPT uptake increased to 43.4% in 2018. Regionally, NIPT uptake ranged from 31.8% to 67.9%. Total uptake (FCT and NIPT) between 2007 and 2018 increased significantly from 14.8% to 45.9% (P < .0001). However, total uptake stabilized at 46% for both years of TRIDENT-2 (April 2017-March 2019).

CONCLUSIONS

An increase in total fetal aneuploidy screening uptake up to 45.9% was observed after the introduction of NIPT. Uptake appears to have stabilized within a year after introducing first-tier NIPT.

The Psychological Well-being of Pregnant Women Undergoing Prenatal Testing and Screening: A Narrative Literature Review

Prenatal screening and testing are preference-based health care options. They are offered so that pregnant women and their partners can learn genetic information about the developing fetus. In this literature review, I summarize studies of women's and their partners' psychological responses to prenatal testing and screening. These studies investigate the experiences of pregnant women, largely in the United States, who have access to health care services. Although the results indicate that these women are receptive to prenatal testing and screening and seem to have limited negative psychological consequences, pregnant women without access to these services are not represented and may have different experiences. With that caveat in mind, based on the evidence, women generally do well psychologically as they manage the options that arise for them in the prenatal context.

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): societal pressure or freedom of choice? A vignette study of Dutch citizens' attitudes

The introduction of the accurate and procedurally easy non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) raises ethical concerns that public attitudes towards prenatal screening may change, leading to societal pressure to participate in aneuploidy screening. This study examined Dutch citizens' attitudes towards a pregnant woman's decision to (1) decline NIPT in the context of two different funding policies and (2) to terminate or continue a pregnancy affected by different disorders. The attitudes of 1096 respondents were assessed with the contrastive vignette method, using two pairs of vignettes about declining NIPT and termination of pregnancy. Most respondents either agreed with a woman's decision to decline NIPT or were neutral about it, stating that this decision should be made independently by women, and does not warrant judgement by others. Interestingly, funding policies did influence respondents' attitudes: significantly more respondents disagreed with declining NIPT when it was fully reimbursed. Respondents had similar attitudes to the vignettes on termination and continuation of pregnancy in case of Down's syndrome. In case of Edwards' or Patau's syndrome, however, significantly more respondents disagreed with continuation, citing the severity of the disorder and the child's best interests. This study demonstrates broad acknowledgement of women's freedom of choice in Dutch society; a finding that may help to rebut existing concerns about societal pressure for pregnant women to participate in prenatal screening. As the reimbursement policy and the scope of NIPT may influence people's attitudes and elicit moral judgements, however, maintaining freedom of choice warrants sustained efforts by health professionals and policy makers.

Comparing prenatal screening experiences of Icelandic women who received false-positive and true-negative first-trimester combined screening results in Iceland in 2012-2016

First-trimester combined screening (FTS) has been offered to all pregnant women in Iceland since 2003. Individuals with high-risk FTS results are offered an invasive test option with a ≤1% risk of fetal loss. This study gives insight into the prenatal screening and diagnosis experiences and preferences of 101 women who underwent FTS in Iceland in the years 2012-2016, comparing the experience of those who received false-positive FTS results to those who received true-negative results. Retrospective patient-reported anxiety levels at the time of receiving FTS results were significantly higher in those who received false-positive results compared to those who received true-negative results. For a subset of these participants, the anxiety lasted through pregnancy, and for a smaller subset, it lasted even longer. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is currently not offered in Iceland, aside from the rare exceptional case. Given the extremely low false-positive rates of NIPT, we believe NIPT is worth considering as Iceland's standard first-tier screening method for trisomy 13, 18, and 21. We believe the findings of this study are beneficial not only for Iceland but also for other countries where FTS is the first-tier prenatal screening method or the only offered test. Additionally, only 21% of participants in our study reported that they had heard of NIPT, which emphasizes the need for comprehensive NIPT pretest information to be available prior to its uptake to ensure informed and autonomous decision-making.

Should pregnant women be charged for non-invasive prenatal screening? Implications for reproductive autonomy and equal access

The introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in healthcare systems around the world offers an opportunity to reconsider funding policies for prenatal screening. In some countries with universal access healthcare systems, pregnant women and their partners are asked to (co)pay for NIPT. In this paper, we discuss two important rationales for charging women for NIPT: (1) to prevent increased uptake of NIPT and (2) to promote informed choice. First, given the aim of prenatal screening (reproductive autonomy), high or low uptake rates are not intrinsically desirable or undesirable. Using funding policies to negatively affect uptake, however, is at odds with the aim of screening. Furthermore, copayment disproportionally affects those of lower socioeconomic status, which conflicts with justice requirements and impedes equal access to prenatal screening. Second, we argue that although payment models may influence pregnant women's choice behaviours and perceptions of the relevance of NIPT, the copayment requirement does not necessarily lead to better-informed choices. On the contrary, external (ie, financial) influences on women's personal choices for or against prenatal screening should ideally be avoided. To improve informed decision-making, healthcare systems should instead invest in adequate non-directive, value-focused pretest counselling. This paper concludes that requiring (substantial) copayments for NIPT in universal access healthcare systems fails to promote reproductive autonomy and is unfair.

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

The noninvasive prenatal test (NIPT) as the first trimester prenatal screening (FTS) for trisomies 21, 18, and 13 is offered to all pregnant women in the Netherlands. NIPT using genome sequencing allows for an expansion of the scope of FTS and the introduction of NIPT gives rise to ethical and societal concerns about deliberated decision‐making, pressure to engage in screening, and possible lack of equal access due to the financial contribution (€175) to NIPT. We explored the opinions and experiences of pregnant women, who were offered FTS, about these concerns, and the possibility of a broadened scope. Nineteen pregnant women representing a diversity of backgrounds were interviewed using a semi‐structured interview guide. Eight women did not opt for prenatal screening while 11 did (NIPT = 4, combined test = 7). Women experienced a free choice to accept or decline prenatal screening, despite sometimes receiving advice from others. Prior to pretest counseling, some women had already deliberated about what an abnormal test result would mean to them. Others accepted or declined FTS without deliberation. The current Dutch policy of requiring a co‐payment was acceptable to some, who believed that it functioned as a threshold to think carefully about FTS. Others were concerned that a financial threshold would lead to unequal access to screening. Finally, pregnant women found it difficult to formulate opinions on the scope of FTS, because of lack of knowledge. Life expectancy, severity, and treatability were considered important criteria for the inclusion of a condition in NIPT.

Autonomous decision-making for antenatal screening in Pakistan: views held by women, men and health professionals in a low-middle income country

Prenatal genetic technologies now are being implemented in LMICs, and while there is much research on the ethical, legal and social implications of such technologies in Western countries, there is a paucity of such research in LMICs, which have diverse cultural, religious, political, financial and health service contexts. This study aimed to explore views about women's autonomous decision-making for antenatal screening held by women, men and healthcare professionals (HCPs) in Pakistan. A Q-methodology study was conducted during June 2016 to January 2018 in Lahore, Pakistan. A total of 137 participants (60 women, 57 men, 20 HCPs) rank-ordered 41 statements. Following by-person factor analysis, four distinct viewpoints were identified. Three of these represent views held by women and men only: autonomous decision-making requires directive advice from doctors; autonomous decision-making requires the husband's involvement, where independent decision-making by the woman is considered culturally inappropriate; and opting for antenatal screening is a foregone decision. One contrasting viewpoint represents predominantly HCPs: autonomous decision-making is the couple's responsibility. These findings highlight that Western approaches to facilitating women's autonomy for antenatal screening are unlikely to be suitable for use in Pakistan. Instead, culturally appropriate practice guidelines are needed in LMICs to enable HCPs to adopt shared decision-making approaches in a way that enables them to facilitate active and joint decision-making by couples, while ensuring women exercise their autonomy.

Facilitating informed choice about non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis of women's experiences

BACKGROUND

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) can be used to accurately detect fetal chromosomal anomalies early in pregnancy by assessing cell-free fetal DNA present in maternal blood. The rapid diffusion of NIPT, as well as the ease and simplicity of the test raises concerns around informed decision-making and the potential for routinization. Introducing NIPT in a way that facilitates informed and autonomous decisions is imperative to the ethical application of this technology. We approach this imperative by systematically reviewing and synthesizing primary qualitative research on women's experiences with and preferences for informed decision-making around NIPT.

METHODS

We searched multiple bibliographic databases including Ovid MEDLINE, EBSCO Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and ISI Web of Science Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). Our review was guided by integrative qualitative meta-synthesis, and we used a staged coding process similar to that of grounded theory to conduct our analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty empirical primary qualitative research studies were eligible for inclusion. Women preferred to learn about NIPT from their clinicians, but they expressed dissatisfaction with the quality and quantity of information provided during counselling and often sought information from a variety of other sources. Women generally had a good understanding of test characteristics, and the factors of accuracy, physical risk, and test timing were the critical information elements that they used to make informed decisions around NIPT. Women often described NIPT as easy or just another blood test, highlighting threats to informed decision-making such as routinization or a pressure to test.

CONCLUSIONS

Women's unique circumstances modulate the information that they value and require most in the context of making an informed decision. Widened availability of trustworthy information about NIPT as well as careful attention to the facilitation of counselling may help facilitate informed decision-making.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018086261 .

The value of non-invasive prenatal testing: preferences of Canadian pregnant women, their partners, and health professionals regarding NIPT use and access

Background

Canadian policies regarding the implementation and public coverage of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) are heterogeneous and shifting, with NIPT being publicly covered for high-risk pregnancies in some provinces, but not others. Such a diverse and evolving policy landscape provides fertile ground for examining the preferences of pregnant women, their partners, and health professionals regarding the implementation and coverage of NIPT by the public healthcare system, as well as the factors influencing their preferences, which is what the present study does.

Methods

In this paper, we report the results of three-large scale Canadian surveys, in which 882 pregnant women, 395 partners of pregnant women, and 184 healthcare professionals participated.

Results

The paper focuses on preferences regarding how and when NIPT should be used, as well as the factors influencing these preferences, and how coverage for NIPT should be provided. These are correlated with respondents’ levels of knowledge about Down syndrome and testing technologies and with their stated intended use of NIPT results.

Conclusion

Salient is the marked difference between the preferences of prospective parents and those of healthcare professionals, which has potential implications for Canadian policy regarding NIPT implementation and insurance coverage.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12884-018-2153-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.