ArticlePrenatal diagnosis2017
Offering non-invasive prenatal testing as part of routine clinical service. Can high levels of informed choice be maintained?
Article in Prenatal diagnosis, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Facilitating informed choice about non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis of women's experiences.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2019Pooled it
- Attitudes About NIPT Routinisation: A Report from a Qualitative Study of 20 UK Healthcare Professionals.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2026Article
- Midwives 'views of parents' questions and expectations on prenatal genetic testing - identifying informational needs in prenatal genetic counselling.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- 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
- Article
- Experiences of perinatal genetic screening for people from migrant and refugee backgrounds: a scoping review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Should the scope of NIPT be limited by a 'threshold of seriousness'?European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- "Knowledge was clearly associated with education." epistemic positioning in the context of informed choice: a scoping review and secondary qualitative analysis.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Factors influencing pregnant women's decision to accept or decline prenatal screening and diagnosis - a qualitative study.Journal of community genetics · 2024Article
- Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): is routinization problematic?BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Preconception education program for non-invasive prenatal testing focused on interest in genetics among female university students in Japan: a quasi-experimental study comparing pre-intervention, post-intervention, and three-month follow-up results.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2023Article
- Preserving women's reproductive autonomy while promoting the rights of people with disabilities?: the case of Heidi Crowter and Maire Lea-Wilson in the light of NIPT debates in England, France and Germany.Journal of medical ethics · 2023Review
- Understanding the experiences and perspectives of prenatal screening among a diverse cohort.Prenatal diagnosis · 2023Article
- Informed choice of pregnant women regarding noninvasive prenatal testing in Korea: a cross-sectional study.Korean journal of women health nursing · 2022Article
- Multisite assessment of the impact of a prenatal testing educational App on patient knowledge and preparedness for prenatal testing decision making.Journal of community genetics · 2022Article
- Postpartum women's attitudes to disclosure of adult-onset conditions in pregnancy.Prenatal diagnosis · 2022Article
- Routinization of prenatal screening with the non-invasive prenatal test: pregnant women's perspectives.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2022Article
- Couple-based expanded carrier screening provided by general practitioners to couples in the Dutch general population: psychological outcomes and reproductive intentions.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021Article
- Properties and Application of Cell-Free DNA as a Clinical Biomarker.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Performance of a universal prenatal screening program incorporating cell-free fetal DNA analysis in Ontario, Canada.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo assess rates of informed choice among women offered non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for aneuploidy as part of routine clinical care.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted across 6 antenatal clinics in England. Women with a high risk (≥1/150) Down syndrome screening result were offered NIPT, invasive testing, or no further testing. Pretest counselling was delivered as part of routine care by the local maternity team. Women were given a questionnaire containing a measure of informed choice immediately after pretest counselling.
resultsIn total, 220 of 247 women completed the questionnaire. Seventy-six percent were judged to have made an informed choice, a significant decline from our previous study (89.0% vs 75.6%; χ
conclusionsThe findings highlight the challenges of ensuring informed choice in routine prenatal care where NIPT is not discussed at multiple points, less time is available for counselling, and written consent is not required.
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.