ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2024
Disparities in integrating non-invasive prenatal testing into antenatal healthcare in Australia: a survey of healthcare professionals.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Healthcare professionals' perspectives on and experiences with non-invasive prenatal testing: a systematic review.Human genetics · 2025Pooled it
- Information, Access, and Stress: Ethical Insights From Parents' Views on Autonomy in Expanded Prenatal Testing.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Discomfort in the Unexpected: A Mixed-Methods Study on Australian Clinicians' Experiences of Explaining Prenatal Screening Results.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2026Article
- Navigating uncertainty during non-invasive prenatal testing: Genetic counselors' experiences of supporting autonomous reproductive decision-making.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- Sex Ratios at Birth Following Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing in Victoria, Australia.Prenatal diagnosis · 2026Article
- Genome-Wide Prenatal cfDNA Screening and the Obstetric Incidentalome: Maternal Cancer, Placental Mosaicism, and Pregnancy Risk.International journal of women's health · 2026Review
- The Function of Non-invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) Request Forms in the Australian Context.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2025Article
- Patient Preferences and Understanding of Genome-Wide Cell-Free DNA Screening for Foetal Chromosomal Imbalances: A Survey Study.Prenatal diagnosis · 2025Article
- '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
- Should the scope of NIPT be limited by a 'threshold of seriousness'?European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT): A Paradigm Shift in Prenatal Care.International journal of preventive medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNon-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has been clinically available in Australia on a user-pays basis since 2012. There are numerous providers, with available tests ranging from targeted NIPT (only trisomies 21, 18, and 13 +/- sex chromosome aneuploidy) to genome-wide NIPT. While NIPT is being implemented in the public health care systems of other countries, in Australia, the implementation of NIPT has proceeded without public funding. The aim of this study was to investigate how NIPT has been integrated into antenatal care across Australia and reveal the successes and challenges in its implementation in this context.
methodsAn anonymous online survey was conducted from September to October 2022. Invitations to participate were sent to healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in the provision of NIPT in Australia through professional society mailing lists and networks. Participants were asked questions on their knowledge of NIPT, delivery of NIPT, and post-test management of results.
resultsA total of 475 HCPs responded, comprising 232 (48.8%) obstetricians, 167 (35.2%) general practitioners, 32 (6.7%) midwives, and 44 (9.3%) genetic specialists. NIPT was most commonly offered as a first-tier test, with most HCPs (n = 279; 60.3%) offering it to patients as a choice between NIPT and combined first-trimester screening. Fifty-three percent (n = 245) of respondents always offered patients a choice between NIPT for the common autosomal trisomies and expanded (including genome-wide) NIPT. This choice was understood as supporting patient autonomy and informed consent. Cost was seen as a major barrier to access to NIPT, for both targeted and expanded tests. Equitable access, increasing time demands on HCPs, and staying up to date with advances were frequently reported as major challenges in delivering NIPT.
conclusionsOur findings demonstrate substantial variation in the clinical implementation of NIPT in Australia, including in the offers of expanded screening options. After a decade of clinical use, Australian clinicians still report ongoing challenges in the clinical and equitable provision of NIPT.
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.