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.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
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
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.