Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37975159›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2024

Women's preferences for NIPT as a first-line test in England and France: Challenges for genetic counseling practices.

Adeline Perrot, Angus Clarke, Carine Vassy, Ruth Horn

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Adeline PerrotEthox Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Angus ClarkeInstitute of Medical Genetics, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Carine VassyInstitute of Interdisciplinary Research on Social Issues, University of Sorbonne Paris Nord, Bobigny, France.
Ruth HornEthox Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5714-3905
Université Sorbonne Paris Nord · FRUniversity of Augsburg · DEUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of Wales Institute Cardiff · SG

Funding

Economic and Social Research Council ES/T00908X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is provided in the private and public sectors worldwide as a first- or second-tier test. In England and France, NIPT is fully funded and offered as a contingent strategy with different probability cut-offs (1:150 and 1:1000). These different approaches to define the target population for NIPT have implications for how women experience their antenatal care. The paper explores and compares the perceptions and difficulties of women in England and France who took NIPT as a second-tier screening test. It is based on a semi-structured qualitative interview study with 17 women in England and France conducted between September 2021 and May 2022. The interviews were cross-analyzed using thematic analysis. Our findings show that most women express a preference for the offer of NIPT as a first-line screening test. Some issues with the contingent model, related to the access to information and termination of pregnancy (TOP), the disparities of NIPT uptake, and risks of generating anxiety with combined first-trimester screening (cFTS), could be addressed by a universal strategy for T21, T13, and T18. Nevertheless, this strategy could present some challenges for genetic counseling due to: women's understanding and expectations of NIPT; adequate information and counseling about the scope and limits of NIPT; concerns about the routinization of NIPT in the first-line offer; limitations and uncertainties associated with the provision of expanded NIPT in France; the remaining importance of other screening tests; and associated costs.

Indexed as

Genetic CounselingAdultEnglandFemaleFranceGenetic TestingHumansNoninvasive Prenatal TestingPatient PreferencePregnancyPrenatal Diagnosisethicsnon‐invasive prenatal testingpolicyprenatal geneticswomen's experiences

Identifiers

PMID37975159
PMCPMC11632564
OpenAlexW4388768536

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.