Perspectives of Pregnant People and Clinicians on Noninvasive Prenatal Testing: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Meta-synthesis.
Journal
Ontario health technology assessment series
ISSN: 1915-7398
Titre abrégé: Ont Health Technol Assess Ser
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101521610
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
entrez:
7
3
2019
pubmed:
7
3
2019
medline:
18
4
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Pregnant people have a risk of carrying a fetus affected by a chromosomal anomaly. Prenatal screening is offered to pregnant people to assess their risk. In recent years, noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has been introduced clinically, which uses the presence of circulating cell-free fetal DNA in the maternal blood to quantify the risk of a chromosomal anomaly. At present, NIPT is publicly funded for pregnancies at high risk of a chromosomal anomaly, and available to pregnant people at average risk if they choose to pay out of pocket. We performed a systematic review of primary, empirical qualitative research that describes the experiences and perspectives of pregnant people, their families, clinicians, and others with lived experience relevant to NIPT. We were interested in the beliefs, experiences, preferences, and perspectives of these groups. We analyzed the evidence available in 36 qualitative and mixed-methods studies using the integrative technique of qualitative meta-synthesis. Most people (pregnant people, clinicians, and others with relevant lived experience) said that NIPT offered important information to pregnant people and their partners. Most people were very enthusiastic about widening access to NIPT because it can provide information about chromosomal anomalies quite early in pregnancy, with relatively high accuracy, and without risk of procedure-related pregnancy loss. However, many groups cautioned that widening access to NIPT may result in routinization of this test, causing potential harm to pregnant people, their families, the health care system, people living with disabilities, and society as a whole. Widened logistical, financial, emotional, and informational access may be perceived as a benefit, but it can also confer harm on various groups. Many of these challenges echo historical critiques of other forms of prenatal testing, with some issues mitigated or exacerbated by the particular features of NIPT. Noninvasive prenatal testing offers significant benefit for pregnant people but may also be associated with potential harms related to informed decision-making, inequitable use, social pressure to test, and reduced support for people with disabilities.
Sections du résumé
Background
Pregnant people have a risk of carrying a fetus affected by a chromosomal anomaly. Prenatal screening is offered to pregnant people to assess their risk. In recent years, noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has been introduced clinically, which uses the presence of circulating cell-free fetal DNA in the maternal blood to quantify the risk of a chromosomal anomaly. At present, NIPT is publicly funded for pregnancies at high risk of a chromosomal anomaly, and available to pregnant people at average risk if they choose to pay out of pocket.
Methods
We performed a systematic review of primary, empirical qualitative research that describes the experiences and perspectives of pregnant people, their families, clinicians, and others with lived experience relevant to NIPT. We were interested in the beliefs, experiences, preferences, and perspectives of these groups. We analyzed the evidence available in 36 qualitative and mixed-methods studies using the integrative technique of qualitative meta-synthesis.
Results
Most people (pregnant people, clinicians, and others with relevant lived experience) said that NIPT offered important information to pregnant people and their partners. Most people were very enthusiastic about widening access to NIPT because it can provide information about chromosomal anomalies quite early in pregnancy, with relatively high accuracy, and without risk of procedure-related pregnancy loss. However, many groups cautioned that widening access to NIPT may result in routinization of this test, causing potential harm to pregnant people, their families, the health care system, people living with disabilities, and society as a whole. Widened logistical, financial, emotional, and informational access may be perceived as a benefit, but it can also confer harm on various groups. Many of these challenges echo historical critiques of other forms of prenatal testing, with some issues mitigated or exacerbated by the particular features of NIPT.
Conclusions
Noninvasive prenatal testing offers significant benefit for pregnant people but may also be associated with potential harms related to informed decision-making, inequitable use, social pressure to test, and reduced support for people with disabilities.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1-38Références
Nurse Res. 2006 Jul 1;13(4):84
pubmed: 27702218
Prenat Diagn. 2013 Jul;33(7):656-61
pubmed: 23613322
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2017 Sep;39(9):805-817
pubmed: 28859766
J Genet Couns. 2016 Oct;25(5):965-77
pubmed: 26739840
J Genet Couns. 2018 Sep;27(5):1238-1247
pubmed: 29525932
Prenat Diagn. 2015 May;35(5):428-33
pubmed: 25201151
J Genet Couns. 2015 Apr;24(2):300-11
pubmed: 25315608
J Genet Couns. 2016 Oct;25(5):1032-43
pubmed: 26879922
Nurs Ethics. 1999 Mar;6(2):126-36
pubmed: 10358528
Qual Health Res. 2007 May;17(5):705-10
pubmed: 17478652
J Genet Couns. 2017 Jun;26(3):522-531
pubmed: 27618823
Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2019 Feb 19;19(4):1-166
pubmed: 30847010
Birth. 2014 Sep;41(3):276-82
pubmed: 24825739
Prenat Diagn. 2015 Aug;35(8):748-53
pubmed: 25846645
Ethics Med Public Health. 2016 Jul-Sep;2(3):334-342
pubmed: 28180146
Qual Health Res. 2016 Aug;26(10):1307-17
pubmed: 27117960
Res Nurs Health. 2003 Apr;26(2):153-70
pubmed: 12652611
Soc Sci Med. 2017 Dec;195:97-104
pubmed: 29169104
J Genet Couns. 2014 Jun;23(3):377-400
pubmed: 24352524
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2004;107(Pt 1):311-6
pubmed: 15360825
Prenat Diagn. 2015 Jun;35(6):598-604
pubmed: 25693726
Eur J Hum Genet. 2016 Jul;24(7):968-75
pubmed: 26577044
J Clin Med. 2014 Jun 19;3(2):614-31
pubmed: 26237393
Qual Health Res. 2018 Nov;28(13):2115-2131
pubmed: 30047306
Genome Med. 2012 Jun 21;4(6):49
pubmed: 22720727
Qual Health Res. 2003 Sep;13(7):893-904
pubmed: 14502956
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Sep 19;17(1):670
pubmed: 28927451
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1991;7(4):509-16
pubmed: 1778697
BMC Med Ethics. 2018 Apr 16;19(1):27
pubmed: 29661182
Prenat Diagn. 2012 Aug;32(8):735-41
pubmed: 22573474
AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2018 Apr-Jun;9(2):99-111
pubmed: 29847254
J Genet Couns. 2017 Feb;26(1):32-39
pubmed: 27277130
Haemophilia. 2012 Jul;18(4):575-83
pubmed: 21951674
PLoS One. 2016 Apr 05;11(4):e0153147
pubmed: 27045195
Eur J Hum Genet. 2012 Nov;20(11):1127-33
pubmed: 22453293
Nurs Res. 2003 Jul-Aug;52(4):226-33
pubmed: 12867779
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017 Dec;57(6):617-623
pubmed: 28681452
Clin Genet. 2016 May;89(5):550-6
pubmed: 26864268
BJOG. 2014 Apr;121(5):582-94
pubmed: 24433394
J Genet Couns. 2014 Oct;23(5):805-13
pubmed: 24481673
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2004 Mar 16;4:5
pubmed: 15070427
J Nurs Scholarsh. 2002;34(3):213-9
pubmed: 12237982
J Genet Couns. 2016 Oct;25(5):1127-37
pubmed: 27038428
PLoS One. 2013 Nov 27;8(11):e81794
pubmed: 24312358
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 Apr 27;17(1):132
pubmed: 28449648
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009 Aug 11;9:59
pubmed: 19671152
J Genet Couns. 2017 Dec;26(6):1348-1356
pubmed: 28667567
Prenat Diagn. 2015 Jul;35(7):692-8
pubmed: 25800864
Eur J Hum Genet. 2014 Dec;22(12):1345-50
pubmed: 24642832
Prenat Diagn. 2016 Sep;36(9):875-81
pubmed: 27477537
PLoS One. 2017 Mar 29;12(3):e0173669
pubmed: 28355226
J Perinatol. 2014 Jun;34(6):429-34
pubmed: 24603453
J Patient Exp. 2018 Mar;5(1):26-33
pubmed: 29582008
Public Health Genomics. 2013;16(5):223-32
pubmed: 23886854
Qual Health Res. 2015 Aug;25(8):1069-84
pubmed: 26063605