Journal of Genetic Counseling

, Volume 23, Issue 5, pp 805–813 | Cite as

Attitudes of Mothers of Children with Down Syndrome Towards Noninvasive Prenatal Testing

  • Gregory Kellogg
  • Leah Slattery
  • Louanne Hudgins
  • Kelly OrmondEmail author
Original Research


Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) allows for highly sensitive detection of Down syndrome early in pregnancy with no risk of miscarriage, therefore potentially increasing the number of pregnancies identified with Down syndrome. This study assesses how mothers of children with Down syndrome perceive NIPT, especially the impact they think it will have on their families and other families with children who have Down syndrome. Seventy-three self-reported mothers of children with Down syndrome responded to an anonymous online survey emailed to, and posted on, message boards of various Down syndrome support groups and networks. Data analysis included chi-square tests and thematic analysis. Fifty-nine percent of respondents indicated they would use NIPT in the future; respondents who had not used prenatal testing in the past were significantly less likely to report interest in using NIPT in the future than those who had prenatal testing previously (p < .001). Many respondents felt NIPT could lead to increased terminations (88 %), increased social stigma (57 %), and decreased availability of services for individuals with Down syndrome (64 %). However, only 16 % believed availability of new noninvasive tests would be the most important factor in determining the number of pregnancies with Down syndrome terminated in the future. Additionally, 48 % believed health care providers give biased or incorrect information about Down syndrome at the time of diagnosis, and 24 % felt this incorrect information leads to terminations of pregnancies affected with Down syndrome. Results suggest although mothers of children with Down syndrome believe new noninvasive testing will lead to an increase in termination of pregnancies with Down syndrome, they do not think it is the MOST important factor. They also highlight the need to provide a diagnosis of Down syndrome in a balanced and objective manner.


Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) Down syndrome Stakeholder views Parent perceptions Information provision 



We would like to thank the participants for their thoughtful contributions to this research, and Marcy Mamiya, who was invaluable in the identification and recruitment of study participants through the various Down syndrome networks. This research was supported by a grant from the Prenatal Special Interest Group of the National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Disclosure of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The authors have full control of the primary data, and they agree to allow the journal to review their data if requested.


  1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). (2012). Committee Opinion No. 545. Noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 120(6), 1532–1534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benn, P., Borrell, A., Cuckle, H., Dugoff, L., Gross, S., Johnson, J., et al. (2012a). Prenatal detection of Down Syndrome using massively parallel sequencing (MPS): a rapid response statement from a committee on behalf of the Board of the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis. Prenatal Diagnosis, 32, 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benn, P., Cuckle, H., & Pergament, E. (2012b). Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome: the paradigm will shift, but slowly. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 39(2), 127–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bianchi, D. W., Platt, L. D., Goldberg, J. D., Abuhamad, A. Z., Sehnert, A. J., & Rava, R. P. (2012). Genome-wide fetal aneuploidy detection by maternal plasma DNA sequencing. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 119(5), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bryant, L., Hewison, J., & Green, J. (2005). Attitudes towards prenatal diagnosis and termination in women who have a sibling with Down’s syndrome. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 23, 181–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chiu R. W., Chan K. C., Gao Y., Lau V. Y., Zheng W., Leung T. Y., et al. (2008). Noninvasive prenatal diagnosis of fetal chromosomal aneuploidy by massively parallel genomic sequencing of DNA in maternal plasma. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105, 20458–20463. pubmed id: 24327983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Jong, A., Dondorp, W. J., de Die-Smulders, C. E. M., et al. (2010). Non-invasive prenatal testing: ethical issues explored. European Journal of Human Genetics, 18, 272–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dent, K. M., Harper, C., Kearney, L., Lieber, C., & Finucane, B. (2011). Embracing the unique role of genetic counselors: response to the commentary by Madeo et al. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 155, 1791–1793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Devers, P. L., Cronister, A., Ormond, K. E., Facio, F., Brasington, C. K., & Flodman, P. (2013). Noninvasive prenatal testing/noninvasive prenatal diagnosis: the position of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 22, 291–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fan, H. C., Blumenfeld, Y. J., Chitkara, U., Hudgins, L., & Quake, S. R. (2008). Noninvasive diagnosis of fetal aneuploidy by shotgun sequencing DNA from maternal blood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(42), 16266–16271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Farrelly, E., Cho, M. K., Erby, L., Roter, D., Stenzel, A., & Ormond, K. E. (2010). Genetic counselors and prenatal testing: where is the discussion about disability? Journal of Genetic Counseling, 19, 671.Google Scholar
  12. Greely, H. T. (2011). Get ready for the flood of fetal gene screening. Nature, 469, 289–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gregg, A., Gross, S., Best, R., Monaghan, K., Bajaj, K., Skotko, B., et al. (2013). ACMG statement on noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy. Genetics in Medicine, 15, 395–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hodgson, J., & Weil, J. (2012). Talking about disability in prenatal genetic counseling. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 21(1), 24–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hodgson, J., Gillam, L., Sahhar, M., & Metcalfe, S. (2010). “Testing times, challenging choices”: an Australian study of prenatal genetic counseling. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 19, 22–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hurford, E., Hawkins, A., Hudgins, L., & Taylor, J. (2013). The decision to continue a pregnancy affected by Down syndrome: timing of decision and satisfaction of receiving a prenatal diagnosis. Journal of Genetic Counseling. doi: Scholar
  17. Inglis, A., Hippman, C., & Austin, J. (2012). Prenatal testing for down syndrome: the perspectives of parents of individuals with down syndrome. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 158A, 743–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kelly, S.E., Farrimond, H.R. (2011). Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis: A study of public attitudes. Public Health Genomics, in press.Google Scholar
  19. Lo, Y. M., Corbetta, N., Chamberlain, P. F., Rai, V., Sargent, I. L., Redman, C. W., et al. (1997). Presence of fetal DNA in maternal plasma and serum. Lancet, 350(9076), 485–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Madeo, A. C., Biesecker, B. B., Brasington, C., Erby, L. H., & Peters, K. F. (2011). The relationship between the genetic counseling profession and the disability community: a commentary. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 155, 1777–1785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nakata, N., Wang, Y., & Bhatt, S. (2010). Trends in prenatal screening and diagnostic testing among women referred for advanced maternal age. Prenatal Diagnosis, 30, 198–206.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Palomaki, G. E., Kloza, E. M., Lambert-Messerlian, G. M., Haddow, J. E., Neveux, L. M., Ehrich, M., et al. (2011). DNA sequencing of maternal plasma to detect Down syndrome: an international clinical validation study. Genetics in Medicine, 13(11), 913–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Palomaki, G. E., Deciu, C., Kloza, E. M., Lambert-Messerlian, G. M., Haddow, J. E., Neveux, L. M., et al. (2012). DNA sequencing of maternal plasma reliably identifies trisomy 18 and trisomy 13 as well as Down syndrome: an international collaborative study. Genetics in Medicine, 14(3), 296–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Press, N., & Browner, C. H. (1998). Characteristics of women who refuse an offer of prenatal diagnosis: data from the California maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein experience. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 78, 433–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Roberts, C. D., Stough, L. D., & Parrish, L. H. (2002). The role of genetic counseling in the elective termination of pregnancies involving fetuses with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 36(1), 48–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sheets, K. B., Crissman, B. G., Feist, C. D., Sell, S. L., Johnson, L. R., Donahue, K. C., et al. (2011). Practice guidelines for communicating a prenatal or postnatal diagnosis of Down syndrome: Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 20, 432–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Skotko, B. G. (2009). With new prenatal testing, will babies with Down syndrome slowly disappear? Archives of Disease in Childhood, 94(11), 823–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tischler, R., Hudgins, L., Blumenfeld, Y. J., Greely, H. T., & Ormond, K. E. (2011). Prenatal Diagnosis, 31(13), 1292–1299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yotsumoto, J., Sekizawa, A., Koide, K., Purwosunu, Y., Ichizuka, K., Matsuoka, R., et al. (2012). Attitudes toward non-invasive prenatal diagnosis among pregnant women and health professionals in Japan. Prenatal Diagnosis, 32, 674–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregory Kellogg
    • 1
  • Leah Slattery
    • 2
  • Louanne Hudgins
    • 2
  • Kelly Ormond
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of GeneticsStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Department of Pediatrics, Division of Medical GeneticsStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  3. 3.Stanford Center for Biomedical EthicsStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations