ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2015
Will the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing for Down's syndrome undermine informed choice?
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Healthcare professionals' perspectives on and experiences with non-invasive prenatal testing: a systematic review.Human genetics · 2025Pooled it
- Benefits and harms of antenatal and newborn screening programmes in health economic assessments: the VALENTIA systematic review and qualitative investigation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Are People From Black Communities Proportionately Represented in UK and US Studies Examining Views on Screening and Diagnostic Genetic Testing in Pregnancy? A Scoping Review.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025Article
- Rethinking the Burden of Traditional Informed Consent Prior to Prenatal Genetic Screening.The Hastings Center report · 2025Article
- Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT): Reliability, Challenges, and Future Directions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Informed choice of pregnant women regarding noninvasive prenatal testing in Korea: a cross-sectional study.Korean journal of women health nursing · 2022Article
- Article
- The influence of experiential knowledge and societal perceptions on decision-making regarding non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT).BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2020Article
- Should pregnant women be charged for non-invasive prenatal screening? Implications for reproductive autonomy and equal access.Journal of medical ethics · 2020Article
- 'Small cost to pay for peace of mind': Women's experiences with non-invasive prenatal testing.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2019Article
- Considering medical risk information and communicating values: A mixed-method study of women's choice in prenatal testing.PloS one · 2017Article
- What factors influence health professionals to use decision aids for Down syndrome prenatal screening?BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2016Article
- Article
- Non-invasive prenatal testing: a review of international implementation and challenges.International journal of women's health · 2015Review
- 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 · 2014Observational
- Decision-making factors in prenatal testing: A systematic review.Health psychology openReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate whether the introduction of non-invasive pre-natal testing for Down's syndrome (DS) has the potential to undermine informed choice.
participantsThree hundred and ninety-three health professionals; 523 pregnant women.
methodsA cross-sectional questionnaire study across nine maternity units and three conferences in the UK designed to assess opinions regarding test delivery and how information should be communicated to women when offered Down's syndrome screening (DSS) or diagnosis using invasive (IDT) or non-invasive testing (NIPT).
resultsBoth pregnant women and health professionals in the NIPT and DSS groups were less likely than the IDT group to consider that testing should take place at a return visit or that obtaining written consent was necessary, and more likely to think testing should be carried out routinely. Compared to health professionals, pregnant women expressed a stronger preference for testing to occur on the same day as pre-test counselling (P = 0.000) and for invasive testing to be offered routinely (P = 0.000). They were also more likely to indicate written consent as necessary for DSS (P = 0.000) and NIPT (P < 0.05).
conclusionsHealth professionals and pregnant women view the consenting process differently across antenatal test types. These differences suggest that informed choice may be undermined with the introduction of NIPT for DS into clinical practice. To maintain high standards of care, effective professional training programmes and practice guidelines are needed which prioritize informed consent and take into account the views and needs of service users.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.