Preferences for prenatal tests for Down syndrome: an international comparison of the views of pregnant women and health professionals

European Journal of Human Genetics - Tập 24 Số 7 - Trang 968-975 - 2016
Melissa Hill1, Jo-Ann Johnson2, Sylvie Langlois3, Hyun Lee3, Stephanie Winsor4, Brigid Dineley4, Marisa Horniachek4, Faustina Lalatta5, Luisa Ronzoni5, Angela N. Barrett6, Henna V. Advani6, Mahesh Choolani6, Ron Rabinowitz7, Eva Pajkrt8, Rachèl V. van Schendel9, Lidewij Henneman9, Wieke Rommers10, Caterina M. Bilardo10, Paula Rendeiro11, Maria João Rodrigues Ferreira Ribeiro12, José Rocha11, Ida Charlotte Bay Lund13, O. B. Petersen14, Naja Becher14, Ida Vogel14, Vigdís Stefánsdóttir15, Sigrún Ingvarsdóttir16, Helga Gottfreðsdóttir16, Stephen Morris17, Lyn S. Chitty1
1Genetics and Genomic Medicine, UCL Institute of Child Health and Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
2Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
3Department of Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
4Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
5Clinical Genetics Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Cà Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milano, Italy
6Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
7Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shaare Zedek Medical Centre, Jerusalem, Israel
8Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fetal Medicine Unit, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
9Department of Clinical Genetics, Section of Community Genetics, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
10Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fetal Medicine Unit, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
11CGC Genetics, Porto, Portugal
12IINFACTS, CESPU, Porto, Portugal
13Department of Clinical Genetics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
14Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
15Department of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland
16Landspitali National University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland
17Research Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK

Tóm tắt

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Minear MA, Lewis C, Pradhan S, Chandrasekharan S : Global perspectives on clinical adoption of NIPT. Prenat Diagn 2015; 35: 959–967.

Gil MM, Quezada MS, Revello R, Akolekar R, Nicolaides KH : Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for fetal aneuploidies: updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015; 45: 249–266.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Committee opinion no. 640: cell-free dna screening for fetal aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 126: e31–e37.

Norton ME, Jacobsson B, Swamy GK et al: Cell-free DNA analysis for noninvasive examination of trisomy. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 1589–1597.

Warsof SL, Larion S, Abuhamad AZ : Overview of the impact of noninvasive prenatal testing on diagnostic procedures. Prenat Diagn 2015; 35: 972–979.

Chiu RW, Chan KC, Gao Y et al: Noninvasive prenatal diagnosis of fetal chromosomal aneuploidy by massively parallel genomic sequencing of DNA in maternal plasma. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2008; 105: 20458–20463.

Fan HC, Blumenfeld YJ, Chitkara U, Hudgins L, Quake SR : Noninvasive diagnosis of fetal aneuploidy by shotgun sequencing DNA from maternal blood. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2008; 105: 16266–16271.

Allyse M, Minear MA, Berson E et al: Non-invasive prenatal testing: a review of international implementation and challenges. Int J Womens Health 2015; 7: 113–126.

Ryan M, Diack J, Watson V, Smith N : Rapid prenatal diagnostic testing for Down syndrome only or longer wait for full karyotype: the views of pregnant women. Prenat Diagn 2005; 25: 1206–1211.

Bishop A, Marteau T, Armstrong D et al: Women and health professional's preferences for Down's Syndrome screening tests: a conjoint analysis study. BJOG 2004; 111: 775–779.

Lewis SM, Cullinane FM, Carlin JB, Halliday JL : Women's and health professionals' preferences for prenatal testing for Down syndrome in Australia. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2006; 46: 205–211.

Lewis SM, Cullinane FN, Bishop AJ et al: A comparison of Australian and UK obstetricians' and midwives' preferences for screening tests for Down syndrome. Prenat Diagn 2006; 26: 60–66.

Hill M, Fisher J, Chitty LS, Morris S : Women's and health professionals' preferences for prenatal tests for Down syndrome: a discrete choice experiment to contrast noninvasive prenatal diagnosis with current invasive tests. Genet Med 2012; 14: 905–913.

Beulen L, Grutters JP, Faas BH et al: Women's and healthcare professionals' preferences for prenatal testing: a discrete choice experiment. Prenat Diagn 2015; 35: 549–557.

Carroll FE, Al-Janabi H, Flynn T, Montgomery AA : Women and their partners' preferences for Down's syndrome screening tests: a discrete choice experiment. Prenat Diagn 2013; 33: 449–456.

Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M : Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Value Health and Health Care. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2008.

Lancsar E, Louviere J : Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26: 661–677.

Tabor A, Alfirevic Z : Update on procedure-related risks for prenatal diagnosis techniques. Fetal Diagn Ther 2010; 27: 1–7.

Hahn G, Shapiro S : A Catalogue and Computer Program for the Design and Analysis of Orthoganol Symmetric and Asymmetric Fractional Factorial Experiments. Schenectady, NY, USA: General Electric Research and Development Centre, 1966.

McFadden D, Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior, in Zarembka P (ed): Frontiers in Econometrics. New York, USA: Academic Press, 1974, pp 105–142..

Haaijer R, Kamakura W, Wedel M : The "no-choice" alternative in conjoint choice experiments. Int J Market Res 2001; 43: 93–106.

Dondorp W, de Wert G, Bombard Y et al: Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy and beyond: challenges of responsible innovation in prenatal screening. Eur J Hum Genet 2015; 23: 1592.

Hill M, Wright D, Daley R et al: Evaluation of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for aneuploidy in an NHS setting: a reliable accurate prenatal non-invasive diagnosis (RAPID) protocol. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014; 14: 229.

TRIDENT Study. Available at: http://www.emgo.nl/research/quality-of-care/research-projects/1451/trident-study-trial-by-dutch-laboratories-for-evaluation-of-non-invasive-prenatal-testing-nipt/background/ (accessed on April 2015).

PEGASUS Study. Available at:. http://pegasus-pegase.ca/pegasus/ (accessed on April 2015).

Hodgson J, Spriggs M : A practical account of autonomy: why genetic counseling is especially well suited to the facilitation of informed autonomous decision making. J Genet Couns 2005; 14: 89–97.

Dormandy E, Marteau TM : Uptake of a prenatal screening test: the role of healthcare professionals' attitudes towards the test. Prenat Diagn 2004; 24: 864–868.

Lewis C, Silcock C, Chitty LS : Non-invasive prenatal testing for Down's syndrome: pregnant women's views and likely uptake. Public Health Genomics 2013; 16: 223–232.

van Schendel RV, Dondorp WJ, Timmermans DR et al: NIPT-based screening for Down syndrome and beyond: what do pregnant women think? Prenat Diagn 2015; 35: 598–604.

Allyse M, Sayres LC, Goodspeed TA, Cho MK : Attitudes towards non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy among US adults of reproductive age. J Perinatol 2014; 34: 429–434.

van den Heuvel A, Chitty L, Dormandy E et al: Is informed choice in prenatal testing universally valued? A population-based survey in Europe and Asia. BJOG 2009; 116: 880–885.

Yu J : A systematic review of issues around antenatal screening and prenatal diagnostic testing for genetic disorders: women of Asian origin in western countries. Health Soc Care Community 2012; 20: 329–346.

Fransen MP, Essink-Bot ML, Vogel I et al: Ethnic differences in informed decision-making about prenatal screening for Down's syndrome. J Epidemiol Community Health 2010; 64: 262–268.

Gitsels-van der Wal JT, Verhoeven PS, Mannien J et al: Factors affecting the uptake of prenatal screening tests for congenital anomalies; a multicentre prospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014; 14: 264.

Crombag NM, Vellinga YE, Kluijfhout SA et al: Explaining variation in Down's syndrome screening uptake: comparing the Netherlands with England and Denmark using documentary analysis and expert stakeholder interviews. BMC. Health Serv Res 2014; 14: 437.

Bakker M, Birnie E, Pajkrt E, Bilardo CM, Snijders RJ : Low uptake of the combined test in The Netherlands—which factors contribute? Prenat Diagn 2012; 32: 1305–1312.

Flaherty JA, Gaviria FM, Pathak D et al: Developing instruments for cross-cultural psychiatric research. J Nerv Ment Dis 1988; 176: 257–263.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

European Journal of Human Genetics

Tập 24 Số 7

968-975

Thông tin tác giả