SynthesisHuman genetics2025
Healthcare professionals' perspectives on and experiences with non-invasive prenatal testing: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Human genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A nationwide survey on attitudes of obstetricians and gynecologists toward comprehensive prenatal genetic testing in Japan.Journal of human genetics · 2026Article
- Personal values, professional responsibilities and non-invasive prenatal testing: reflections of genetic counsellors in Australia.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Preferences of Pregnant Women and Healthcare Professionals on First-Trimester Ultrasound Screening for Fetal Anomalies: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Prenatal diagnosis · 2026Article
- Navigating uncertainty during non-invasive prenatal testing: Genetic counselors' experiences of supporting autonomous reproductive decision-making.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- Genetic counselors' perspectives on the expanded use of non-invasive prenatal testing.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Genome-Wide Prenatal cfDNA Screening and the Obstetric Incidentalome: Maternal Cancer, Placental Mosaicism, and Pregnancy Risk.International journal of women's health · 2026Review
- Counseling prior to cfDNA screening: are we giving the right numbers?Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe increasing integration of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) into antenatal practice and public healthcare systems globally raises both significant challenges in standardising service delivery and important ethical questions around routinisation and reproductive autonomy. This systematic review aims to synthesise existing primary empirical research on healthcare professionals' views on and experiences with NIPT.
methodsA systematic search was conducted across four major databases in September 2023 and repeated in December 2024. Studies that reported findings from primary empirical research, including quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research were included.
resultsSearches returned 65 eligible articles, spanning 38 countries and 1 special administrative region and at least 12 professions. Views on who NIPT should have access to and which conditions should be screened for were influenced by perceived clinical utility. While healthcare professionals acknowledged NIPT as beneficial for supporting reproductive autonomy, concerns were raised about the amount and complexity of information to be conveyed during prenatal counseling and potential pressure to test. Cost was also identified as a significant barrier. Challenges reported during post-test counseling included communicating test failures and gaining information from laboratories. Views on the implications of NIPT for decision-making around abortion and for people with disabilities varied.
conclusionsHealthcare professionals play a critical role in facilitating the access to and decisions by pregnant people around prenatal genetic testing. Addressing barriers in clinical practice and increasing consistency across and access to clinical guidelines and education resources may support healthcare professionals in supporting reproductive autonomy.
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.