Psychological impact of additional findings detected by genome-wide Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT): TRIDENT-2 study

In the Netherlands, genome-wide non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is offered to all pregnant women as part of the nationwide TRIDENT-2 study. Findings other than trisomy 21, 18, or 13, which are called "additional findings", are reported only on request of the pregnant woman. This study examined: (1) women's pre-test perceptions and reasons to opt for additional findings and (2) women's experiences with- and the psychological impact of being informed about an additional finding. A questionnaire, consisting of the anxiety measure State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), distress measure Impact of Event Scale (IES) and questions developed specifically for this study, was retrospectively administered to 402 women who received an additional finding. A total of 227 (56.5%) women completed the questionnaire. Most (60.2%) chose to know additional findings because they wanted as much information as possible about the health of their fetus. Almost all (92%) stated that receiving the additional finding was unexpected, a shock, and/or they were in disbelief, for 85% it caused a lot of worry. Post-test, high anxiety (STAI) levels were reported in 15.5% of women, and 7.5% reported severe distress (IES). Women who gave birth to an affected child (n = 10) experienced most psychological impact (STAI and IES). Eighty-six percent of women with a fetal aberration would opt for additional findings again, compared to 49.2% of women whose result was confined to the placenta. Pre-test counseling should focus on explaining the different results NIPT can generate. Post-test counseling should focus on guiding pregnant women through this uncertain and anxious time.

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.

Views of patients and parents of children with genetic disorders on population-based expanded carrier screening

Objective

Faster and cheaper next generation sequencing technologies have enabled expansion of carrier screening for recessive disorders, potentially facilitating population‐based implementation regardless of ancestry or family history. Little is known, however, about the attitudes regarding population‐based carrier screening among families with genetic disorders. This study assessed views among parents and patients with a recessive disorder and parents of children with Down syndrome (DS) on expanded carrier screening (ECS).

Method

In total, 85 patients with various recessive disorders, 110 parents of a child with a recessive disorder and 89 parents of a child with DS participated in an online survey in the Netherlands. Severity of recessive disorders was classified as mild/moderate or severe/profound.

Results

The majority of the (parents of) patients with a recessive disorder had a positive attitude towards population‐based ECS, including screening for their own or their child's disorder. DS parents were significantly less positive towards ECS. Subgroup analyses showed that the severity of the disorder, rather than being a patient or parent, influences the attitudes, beliefs and intention to participate in ECS.

Conclusion

Our findings have important implications for future implementation initiatives as they demonstrate the different perspectives from people with experiential knowledge with genetic disorders.

What's already known about this topic?

Carrier screening panels for recessive disorders are rapidly expanding.

Concerns have been raised about the possible impact of expanded carrier screening (ECS) on people affected by genetic disorders.

What does this study add?

The majority of Dutch (parents of) patients with a recessive disorder had a positive attitude towards ECS. Parents of children with Down syndrome are less positive.

Severity of the disorder, rather than being a patient or parent, influenced the attitudes, beliefs and intention to participate in ECS.

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.

Study design of a stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effect of a locally tailored approach for preconception care - the APROPOS-II study

Background

In a previous feasibility study (APROPOS) in a single municipality of the Netherlands, we showed that a locally tailored preconception care (PCC) approach has the potential to positively affect preconceptional lifestyle behaviours. Therefore, we designed a second study (APROPOS-II) to obtain a more robust body of evidence: a larger group of respondents, more municipalities, randomization, and a more comprehensive set of (clinical) outcomes. The aim of this study is to assess the effectiveness and the implementation process of a local PCC-approach on preconceptional lifestyle behaviours, health outcomes and the reach of PCC among prospective parents and healthcare providers.

Methods

This study is an effectiveness-implementation hybrid type 2 trial. This involves a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial design aiming to include over 2000 future parents from six municipalities in the Netherlands. The intervention has a dual-track approach, focusing on both the uptake of PCC among future parents and the provision of PCC by healthcare providers. The PCC-approach consists of 1) a social marketing strategy directed towards prospective parent(s) and 2) a local care pathway to improve interdisciplinary collaboration. Data will be collected before and after the introduction of the intervention through questionnaires and medical records in each of the participating municipalities. The primary outcome of this study is change in lifestyle behaviours (e.g. folic acid use, smoking and alcohol use). Secondary outcomes are pregnancy outcomes (e.g. miscarriage, preterm birth, gestational diabetes) and the uptake of PCC. Moreover, a process evaluation will be performed, providing information on the efficacy, feasibility, barriers and facilitators regarding the implementation of the intervention.

Discussion

The APROPOS-II study introduces a locally tailored PCC-approach in six municipalities in the Netherlands that will contribute to the body of evidence regarding the effectiveness of PCC and its implementation. If this intervention has a positive effect on lifestyle behaviour changes, leading to improved pregnancy outcomes and the future health of prospective parents and their offspring, it could subsequently be upscaled to (inter)national implementation.

Trial registration

Dutch Trial register: NL7784 (Registered June 6th, 2019).

A qualitative study on stakeholders' views on the participation of pregnant women in the APOSTEL VI study: a low-risk obstetrical RCT

Background

Bioethicists argue that inclusion of pregnant women in clinical research should be more routine to increase the evidence-base for pregnant women and foetuses. Yet, it is unknown whether pregnant women and others directly involved are willing to be routinely included. Therefore, we first need to establish what these stakeholders think about research participation in regular pregnancy-related research. However, studies on their views are scarce. In our study, we piggy-backed on a relatively conventional RCT, the APOSTEL VI study, to identify the views of stakeholders on inclusion of pregnant women in this study.

Methods

We conducted a prospective qualitative study using 35 in-depth semi-structured interviews and one focus group. We interviewed pregnant women (n = 14) recruited for the APOSTEL VI study, in addition to healthcare professionals (n = 14), Research Ethics Committee members (RECs) (n = 5) and regulators (n = 7) involved in clinical research in pregnant women.

Results

Three themes characterise stakeholders’ views on inclusion of pregnant women in the APOSTEL VI study. Additionally, one theme characterises stakeholders’ interest in inclusion of pregnant women in clinical research in general. First, pregnant women participate in the APOSTEL VI study for potential individual benefit and secondarily for altruistic motives, contrary to hypothetical studies. Second, a gatekeeping tendency hampers recruitment of pregnant women who might be eligible and willing, and questions about pregnant women’s decisional capacities surface. Third, healthcare professionals sometimes use the counselling conversation to steer pregnant women in a direction. Fourth, all stakeholders are hesitant about inclusion of pregnant women in clinical research in general due to a protective sentiment.

Conclusions

Pregnant women are willing to participate in the APOSTEL VI study for potential individual benefit and altruistic motives. However, an underlying protective sentiment, resulting in gatekeeping and directive counselling, sometimes hampers recruitment in the APOSTEL VI study as well as in clinical research in general. While bioethicists claim that inclusion of pregnant women should be customary, our study indicates that healthcare professionals, regulators, RECs and pregnant women themselves are not necessarily interested in inclusion. Advancing the situation and increasing the evidence-base for pregnant women and foetuses may require additional measures such as investing in the recruitment and feasibility of RCTs and stimulating pregnant women’s decisional capacities.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12884-019-2209-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

What Do Parents of Children with Down Syndrome Think about Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT)?

This study explores the attitudes of parents of children with Down syndrome towards non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and widening the scope of prenatal screening. Three focus groups (n = 16) and eleven individual interviews with Dutch parents (and two relatives) of children with Down syndrome were conducted. Safety, accuracy and earlier testing were seen as the advantages of NIPT. Some participants were critical about the practice of screening for Down syndrome, but acknowledged that NIPT enables people to know whether the fetus is affected and to prepare without risking miscarriage. Many feared uncritical use of NIPT and more abortions for Down syndrome. Concerns included the consequences for the acceptance of and facilities for children with Down syndrome, resulting in more people deciding to screen. Participants stressed the importance of good counseling and balanced, accurate information about Down syndrome. Testing for more disorders might divert the focus away from Down syndrome, but participants worried about “where to draw the line”. They also feared a loss of diversity in society. Findings show that, while parents acknowledge that NIPT offers a better and safer option to know whether the fetus is affected, they also have concerns about NIPT’s impact on the acceptance and care of children with Down syndrome.

[Preconceptual care should include looking at the effect of working conditions on pregnancy]

Working conditions are amongst the exogenous factors that can lead to pregnancy complications. Attention within preconceptual care to the working conditions experienced by women who plan to become pregnant can change this, by influencing exposure to harmful working conditions. Until now, relatively little attention has been given to working conditions within preconceptual care, and the subject is often not discussed in daily midwifery practice. The most relevant literature on this topic is summarized in this article. Occupational exposure to certain chemicals, stressful work and nightshifts during early pregnancy increase the risk of spontaneous abortion. There is also an increased risk of congenital malformations if the mother has been exposed to solvents or pesticides during early pregnancy, or the father has been exposed to these substances before or shortly after conception. We conclude that the occupational physician should be involved in the preconceptual consultation in order to contribute to the prevention of pregnancy complications.