Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28927451›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2017

Implementing non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy in a national healthcare system: global challenges and national solutions.

Rachèl V van Schendel, Carla G van El, Eva Pajkrt, Lidewij Henneman, Martina C Cornel

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Rachèl V van SchendelDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Section of Community Genetics, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, VU University Medical Center, P.O. Box 7057, 1007, MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Carla G van ElDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Section of Community Genetics, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, VU University Medical Center, P.O. Box 7057, 1007, MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Eva PajkrtDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fetal Medicine Unit, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Lidewij HennemanDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Section of Community Genetics, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, VU University Medical Center, P.O. Box 7057, 1007, MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. l.henneman@vumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3531-0597
Martina C CornelDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Section of Community Genetics, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, VU University Medical Center, P.O. Box 7057, 1007, MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSince the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in 2011, mainly by commercial companies, a growing demand for NIPT from the public and healthcare professionals has been putting pressure on the healthcare systems of various countries. This study identifies the challenges of establishing a responsible implementation of NIPT for aneuploidy in prenatal healthcare, by looking at the Netherlands.

methodsA mixed methods approach involving 13 stakeholder interviews, document analysis and (participatory) observations of the Dutch NIPT Consortium meetings were used. The Diffusion of Innovation Theory and a Network of Actors model were used to interpret the findings.

resultsImplementation of NIPT was facilitated by several factors. The set-up of a national NIPT Consortium enabled discussion and collaboration between stakeholders. Moreover, it led to the plan to offer NIPT through a nationwide research setting (TRIDENT studies), which created a learning phase for careful implementation. The Dutch legal context was perceived as a delaying factor, but eventually gave room for the parties involved to organise themselves and their practices.

conclusionsThis study shows that implementing advanced technologies with profound effects on prenatal care benefit from a learning phase that allows time to carefully evaluate the technical performance and women's experiences and to enable public debate. Such a coordinated learning phase, involving all stakeholders, will stimulate the process of responsible and sustainable implementation.

Indexed as

AneuploidyGenetic TestingInternationalityPrenatal DiagnosisUltrasonography, PrenatalBiomarkersCost-Benefit AnalysisDecision MakingDiffusion of InnovationFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PolicyHumansNetherlandsPatient Acceptance of Health CarePregnancyBiomarkersDown syndromeImplementationInnovationNon-invasive prenatal testingPrenatal screeningQualitative analysis

Identifiers

PMID28927451
PMCPMC5605972

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.