Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39803931›Full record

ArticleThe Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology2025

'Screening should not be based on ability to pay': Australian healthcare providers' and consumers' perspectives on public funding for non-invasive prenatal testing.

Cecilia Pynaker, Molly Johnston, Catherine Mills, Katie Vasey, Michelle Taylor-Sands, Hilary Bowman-Smart, Lisa Hui

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors.

Cecilia PynakerReproductive Epidemiology Group, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2360-0781
Molly JohnstonMonash Bioethics Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Catherine MillsMonash Bioethics Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Katie VaseyMonash Bioethics Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Michelle Taylor-SandsMelbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Hilary Bowman-SmartMonash Bioethics Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2142-9696
Lisa HuiReproductive Epidemiology Group, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9720-3562

Funding

Australian Research Council Linkage Project Scheme LP190100841National Health and Medicare Research Council, Medical Research Future Fund 1196010The University of Melbourne, Felix Meyer Scholarship in Obstetrics & Gynaecology
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNon-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) does not receive any Medicare rebate. This study investigated the views of Australian healthcare providers and consumers on public funding of NIPT. MATERIALS AND

methodsTwo anonymous online, cross-sectional surveys were conducted from September 2022 to January 2023. Surveys targeted maternity healthcare professionals ('providers'), and individuals who had recently conceived a pregnancy ('consumers'). Quantitative data were analysed using χ

resultsResponses from 381 providers and 630 consumers were analysed. The overwhelming majority of providers (96.8%) identified financial cost as a consumer barrier to NIPT access. Public funding for NIPT was supported by 86.4% of providers and 90.4% of consumers, with free-text responses citing equity, clinical, health economic, reproductive autonomy, and ethical justifications. Of the 145 consumers who did not use NIPT in a recent pregnancy, 63.1% rated cost as an 'important/very important' factor in foregoing NIPT. NIPT non-users were younger, had lower household income and education, and were more likely to live in a rural or remote area than consumers who used NIPT.

conclusionMaternity healthcare providers and consumers are highly supportive of public funding for NIPT as a first-line screening test on clinical, equity, health economic, and ethical grounds. Our results confirm the presence of significant socioeconomic disparities between NIPT users and non-users, with cost being the most important factor impeding equitable access to best practice in prenatal screening. Further research and advocacy are needed to achieve equitable access to best practice in antenatal care.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelFinancing, GovernmentHealth PersonnelNoninvasive Prenatal TestingPrenatal DiagnosisAdultAustraliaCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPregnancySurveys and Questionnairesaneuploidyhealth equityhealth services accessibilitynon‐invasive prenatal testing

Identifiers

PMID39803931
PMCPMC12282033

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.