ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2019
The value of non-invasive prenatal testing: preferences of Canadian pregnant women, their partners, and health professionals regarding NIPT use and access.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Healthcare professionals' perspectives on and experiences with non-invasive prenatal testing: a systematic review.Human genetics · 2025Pooled it
- 'Screening should not be based on ability to pay': Australian healthcare providers' and consumers' perspectives on public funding for non-invasive prenatal testing.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2025Article
- Towards a Responsible Implementation of NIPT as a First-Tier Test in Canada: Decision-Makers' Perspectives.Prenatal diagnosis · 2025Article
- Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Current Status of Adoption and Roadmap for the Future.The application of clinical genetics · 2025Article
- Women's preferences for NIPT as a first-line test in England and France: Challenges for genetic counseling practices.Journal of genetic counseling · 2024Article
- Factors affecting couples' decision making about expanded prenatal cell-free DNA screening.Genetics in medicine open · 2024Article
- The expressivist argument for recent policy changes regarding the provision of prenatal testing in Japan.Global bioethics = Problemi di bioetica · 2024Article
- The risk of normative bias in reporting empirical research: lessons learned from prenatal screening studies about the prominence of acknowledged limitations.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2023Article
- Understanding knowledge, perception, and willingness of non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy: a survey among Chinese high-risk pregnant women.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Patient attitudes and preferences about expanded noninvasive prenatal testing.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Patient experience with non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as a primary screen for aneuploidy in the Netherlands.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Article
- Non-invasive prenatal test uptake in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods.Prenatal diagnosis · 2021Article
- Access to Prenatal Testing and Ethically Informed Counselling in Germany, Poland and Russia.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Clinical Significance of Non-Invasive Prenatal Screening for Trisomy 7: Cohort Study and Literature Review.Genes · 2020Review
- Sex selection and non-invasive prenatal testing: A review of current practices, evidence, and ethical issues.Prenatal diagnosis · 2020Review
- Should pregnant women be charged for non-invasive prenatal screening? Implications for reproductive autonomy and equal access.Journal of medical ethics · 2020Article
- Plutonormativity: Illuminating Inequities in Assisted Reproduction and Genetics.Health law in Canada · 2019Article
- 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCanadian policies regarding the implementation and public coverage of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) are heterogeneous and shifting, with NIPT being publicly covered for high-risk pregnancies in some provinces, but not others. Such a diverse and evolving policy landscape provides fertile ground for examining the preferences of pregnant women, their partners, and health professionals regarding the implementation and coverage of NIPT by the public healthcare system, as well as the factors influencing their preferences, which is what the present study does.
methodsIn this paper, we report the results of three-large scale Canadian surveys, in which 882 pregnant women, 395 partners of pregnant women, and 184 healthcare professionals participated.
resultsThe paper focuses on preferences regarding how and when NIPT should be used, as well as the factors influencing these preferences, and how coverage for NIPT should be provided. These are correlated with respondents' levels of knowledge about Down syndrome and testing technologies and with their stated intended use of NIPT results.
conclusionSalient is the marked difference between the preferences of prospective parents and those of healthcare professionals, which has potential implications for Canadian policy regarding NIPT implementation and insurance coverage.
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.