Talking Points: Women’s Information Needs for Informed Decision-Making About Noninvasive Prenatal Testing for Down Syndrome
- 558 Downloads
Adequate knowledge is a vital component of informed decision-making; however, we do not know what information women value when making decisions about noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT). The current study aimed to identify women’s information needs for decision-making about NIPT as a first-tier, non-contingent test with out-of-pocket expense and, in turn, inform best practice by specifying the information that should be prioritized when providing pre-test counseling to women in a time-limited scenario or space-limited decision support tool. We asked women (N = 242) in Australia to indicate the importance of knowing 24 information items when making a decision about NIPT and to choose two information items they would most value. Our findings suggest that women value having complete information when making decisions about NIPT. Information about the accuracy of NIPT and the pros and cons of NIPT compared to other screening and invasive tests were perceived to be most important. The findings of this study can be used to maximize the usefulness of time-limited discussions or space-limited decision support tools, but should not be routinely relied upon as a replacement for provision of full and tailored information when feasible.
KeywordsDecision-making Prenatal screening Informed consent Down syndrome Noninvasive prenatal testing Noninvasive prenatal screening Cell-free fetal DNA cffDNA Patient education Patient knowledge
We would like to thank the Queensland Centre for Mothers & Babies for facilitating recruitment through their newsletter, Facebook page, and consumer database.
This work was conducted to fulfill a degree requirement for the Masters of Science (with Honors in Genetic Counseling).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Aimée C. Dane, Madelyn Peterson, and Yvette D. Miller declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human Studies and Informed Consent
All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study.
This study was approved by the Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee (protocol number BPS/19/12/HREC).
No animal studies were carried out by the authors for this article.
- Allyse, M., Minear, M. A., Berson, E., Sridhar, S., Rote, M., Hung, A., & Chandrasekharan, S. (2015). Non-invasive prenatal testing: a review of international implementation and challenges. International Journal of Women’s Health, 7, 113–126. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S67124.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Barrett, A. N., Advani, H. V., Chitty, L. S., Su, L. L., Biswas, A., Tan, W. C., et al. (2016). Evaluation of preferences of women and healthcare professionals in Singapore for implementation of noninvasive prenatal testing for Down syndrome. Singapore Medical Journal. https://doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2016114.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Beulen, L., van den Berg, M., Faas, B. H., Feenstra, I., Hageman, M., van Vugt, J. M., & Bekker, M. N. (2016). The effect of a decision aid on informed decision-making in the era of non-invasive prenatal testing: a randomised controlled trial. European Journal of Human Genetics, 24(10), 1409–1416.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Hill, M., Wright, D., Daley, R., Lewis, C., McKay, F., Mason, S., Lench, N., Howarth, A., Boustred, C., Lo, K., Plagnol, V., Spencer, K., Fisher, J., Kroese, M., Morris, S., & Chitty, L. S. (2014). Evaluation of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for aneuploidy in an NHS setting: a reliable accurate prenatal non-invasive diagnosis (RAPID) protocol. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 14(229). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-14-229.
- Kuppermann, M., Pena, S., Bishop, J. T., Nakagawa, S., Gregorich, S. E., Sit, A., Vargas, J., Caughey, A. B., Sykes, S., Pierce, L., & Norton, M. E. (2014). Effect of enhanced information, values clarification, and removal of financial barriers on use of prenatal genetic testing: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 312(12), 1210–1217.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Nagle, C., Gunn, J., Bell, R., Lewis, S., Meiser, B., Metcalfe, S., Ukoumunne, O. C., & Halliday, J. (2008). Use of a decision aid for prenatal testing of fetal abnormalities to improve women’s informed decision making: a cluster randomised controlled trial. BJOG, 115(3), 339–347.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Piechan, J. L., Hines, K. A., Koller, D. L., Stone, K., Quaid, K., Torres-Martinez, W., Wilson Mathews, D., Foroud, T., & Cook, L. (2016). NIPT and informed consent: an assessment of patient understanding of a negative NIPT result. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 25, 1127–1137.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- RANZCOG, College statement C-Obs 59: prenatal screening and diagnosis of chromosomal and genetic abnormalities in the fetus in pregnancy, 2015.Google Scholar
- Stacey, D., Légaré, F., Col, N.F., Bennett, C.L., Barry, M.J., Eden, K.B., et al. (2014). Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD001431. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub4.
- Sung, V. W., Raker, C. A., Myers, D. L., & Clark, M. A. (2010). Treatment decision-making and information-seeking preferences in women with pelvic floor disorders. International Urogynecology Journal, 21(9), 1071–1078. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-010-1155-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Van Schendel, R. V., Page-Christiaens, G. C. (. L.)., Beulen, L., Bilardo, C. M., de Boer, M. A., Coumans, A. B. C., et al. (2016). Trial by Dutch laboratories for evaluation of non-invasive prenatal testing. Part II—women’s perspectives. Prenatal Diagnosis, 36(12), 1091–1098. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4941.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Van Schendel, R. V., van El, C. G., Pajkrt, E., Henneman, L., & Cornel, M. C. (2017). Implementing non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy in a national healthcare system: global challenges and national solutions. BMC Health Services Research, 17, 670. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2618-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Vanstone, M., Yacoub, K., Giacomini, M., Hulan, D., & McDonald, S. (2015). Women’s experiences of publicly funded non-invasive prenatal testing in Ontario, Canada: considerations for health technology policy-making. Qualitative Health Research, 25(8), 1069–1084. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315589745.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wilson, K. L., Czerwinski, J. L., Hoskovec, J. M., Noblin, S. J., Sullivan, C. M., Harbison, A., Campion, M. W., Devary, K., Devers, P., & Singletary, C. N. (2013). NSGC practice guideline: prenatal screening and diagnostic testing options for chromosome aneuploidy. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 22(1), 4–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar