Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31710169›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2020

Implementing non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in the Netherlands: An interview study exploring opinions about and experiences with societal pressure, reimbursement, and an expanding scope.

Iris M Bakkeren, Adriana Kater-Kuipers, Eline M Bunnik, Attie T J I Go, Aad Tibben, Inez D de Beaufort, Robert-Jan H Galjaard, Sam R Riedijk

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Negotiating Awareness: Dutch Midwives' Experiences of Noninvasive Prenatal Screening Counseling.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Iris M BakkerenDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Adriana Kater-KuipersDepartment of Medical Ethics, Philosophy of Medicine and Medical History, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Eline M BunnikDepartment of Medical Ethics, Philosophy of Medicine and Medical History, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Attie T J I GoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Aad TibbenDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Inez D de BeaufortDepartment of Medical Ethics, Philosophy of Medicine and Medical History, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Robert-Jan H GaljaardDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Sam R RiedijkDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Erasmus University Rotterdam · NLErasmus MC · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The noninvasive prenatal test (NIPT) as the first trimester prenatal screening (FTS) for trisomies 21, 18, and 13 is offered to all pregnant women in the Netherlands. NIPT using genome sequencing allows for an expansion of the scope of FTS and the introduction of NIPT gives rise to ethical and societal concerns about deliberated decision-making, pressure to engage in screening, and possible lack of equal access due to the financial contribution (€175) to NIPT. We explored the opinions and experiences of pregnant women, who were offered FTS, about these concerns, and the possibility of a broadened scope. Nineteen pregnant women representing a diversity of backgrounds were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide. Eight women did not opt for prenatal screening while 11 did (NIPT = 4, combined test = 7). Women experienced a free choice to accept or decline prenatal screening, despite sometimes receiving advice from others. Prior to pretest counseling, some women had already deliberated about what an abnormal test result would mean to them. Others accepted or declined FTS without deliberation. The current Dutch policy of requiring a co-payment was acceptable to some, who believed that it functioned as a threshold to think carefully about FTS. Others were concerned that a financial threshold would lead to unequal access to screening. Finally, pregnant women found it difficult to formulate opinions on the scope of FTS, because of lack of knowledge. Life expectancy, severity, and treatability were considered important criteria for the inclusion of a condition in NIPT.

Indexed as

Reimbursement MechanismsAdultFemaleGenetic TestingHumansNetherlandsPregnancyPrenatal DiagnosisSocial ClassDecision-makingdeliberationexpanding scopegenetic counselingNIPTpsychosocialreimbursementsocietal pressure

Identifiers

PMID31710169
PMCPMC7041621
OpenAlexW2985750106

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.