Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) via fetal DNA in maternal blood has been publicly funded in Ontario, Canada, for high-risk women since 2014. We solicited women’s experiences and values related to this new health technology to describe how this test is currently being used in Ontario and to provide information about patient priorities to inform future policy decisions about the use of NIPT. Guided by constructivist grounded theory methodology, we interviewed 38 women who had diverse personal experiences with NIPT. Participants’ accounts of their values for decision making about NIPT heavily relied on three mutually modulating factors: timing, accuracy, and risk. The values expressed by women conflict with the way that publicly funded NIPT has typically been implemented in Ontario. We offer recommendations for how NIPT might be integrated into prenatal care pathways in a way more consistent with women’s values.
AllyseM.SayresL.GoodspeedT.ChoM. (2014). Attitudes towards non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy among US adults of reproductive age. Journal of Perinatology, 34, 429–434.
2.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2012). Noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy (Committee Opinion No. 545). Obstetrics & Gynecology, 120, 1532–1534.
3.
AndersonG. (1999). Nondirectiveness in prenatal genetics: Patients read between the lines. Nursing Ethics, 6, 126–136.
4.
BekkerH.ThorntonJ. G.AireyC. M.ConnellyJ. B.HewisonJ.RobinsonM. B.. . . PearmanA. D. (1999). Informed decision making: An annotated bibliography and systematic review. Health Technology Assessment, 3(1), 1–156.
5.
BennP.BorellA.ChiuR.CuckleH.DugoffL.FaasB.. . . NortonM. (2013). Position statement from the aneuploidy screening committee on behalf of the board of the international society for prenatal diagnosis, April 2013. Prenatal Diagnosis, 32, 1–2.
6.
BennP.CuckleH.PergamentE. (2013). Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy: Current status and future prospects. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 42, 15–33.
7.
BianchiD. W.OepkesD.GhidiniA. (2014). Current controversies in prenatal diagnosis 1: Should noninvasive DNA testing be the standard screening test for Down syndrome in all pregnant women?Prenatal Diagnosis, 34, 6–11.
8.
BianchiD. W.Wilkins-HaugL. (2014). Integration of noninvasive DNA testing for aneuploidy into prenatal care: What has happened since the rubber met the road?Clinical Chemistry, 60, 78–87.
9.
BoardmanF. K. (2014). The expressivist objection to prenatal testing: The experiences of families living with genetic disease. Social Science & Medicine, 107, 18–25.
CarrollJ. C.ReidA. J. (1997). Ontario maternal serum screening program: Practices, knowledge and opinions of health care. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 156, 775–784.
12.
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Quebec. (2013). Study of the efficacy of new non-invasive prenatal tests for screening for fetal trisomies using maternal blood. Retrieved from http://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT01925742
13.
ChanY. M.LeungW. C.ChanW. P.LeungT. Y.ChengY. K. Y.SahotaD. S. (2015). Women’s uptake of non-invasive DNA testing following a high-risk screening test for trisomy 21 within a publicly funded healthcare system: Findings from a retrospective review. Prenatal Diagnosis, 35, 342–347. doi:10.1002/pd.4544
14.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
15.
ChettyS.GarabedianM. J.NortonM. (2013). Uptake of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in women following positive aneuploidy screening. Prenatal Diagnosis, 33, 542–546.
16.
ChitayatD.LangloisS.WilsonR. D. (2011). Prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy in singleton pregnancies. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, 33, 736–750.
17.
ChittyL. S.HillM.WhiteH.WrightD.MorrisS. (2012). Noninvasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy-ready for prime time?American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 206, 269–275.
18.
ConstantineM.AllyseM.WallM.De VriesR.RockwoodT. (2013). Imperfect informed consent for prenatal screening: Lessons from the quad screen. Clinical Ethics, 9, 17–27. doi:10.1177/1477750913511339
19.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
20.
DeansZ.NewsonA. J. (2011). Should non-invasiveness change informed consent procedures for prenatal diagnosis?Health Care Analysis, 19, 122–132.
21.
DeversP. L.CronisterA.OrmondK. E.FacioF.BrasingtonC. K.FlodmanP. (2013). Noninvasive prenatal testing/noninvasive prenatal diagnosis: The position of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 22, 291–295. doi:10.1007/s10897-012-9564-0
22.
Ferm WidlundK.GunnarssonC.NordinK.HanssonM. G. (2009). Pregnant women are satisfied with the information they receive about prenatal diagnosis, but are their decisions well informed?Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 88, 1128–1132. doi:10.1080/00016340903144246
23.
FlickU. (2004). Triangulation in qualitative research. In FlickU.von KardorffE.SteinkeI. (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 178–183). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Gamma Dynacare. (2014). OHIP now covers payments for the Harmony Prenatal Test Information Bulletin. Laval, Québec, Canada: Author.
26.
GekasJ.GondryJ.MazurS.CesbronP.ThepotF. (1999). Informed consent to serum screening for Down syndrome: Are women given adequate information?Prenatal Diagnosis, 19, 1–7. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0223(199901)19:1<1::aid-pd456>3.0.co;2-s
27.
GiacominiM.HurleyJ.GoldI.SmithP.AbelsonJ. (2004). The policy analysis of “values talk”: Lessons from Canadian health reform. Health Policy, 67, 15–24.
28.
GigerenzerG.GaissmaierW.Kurz-MilckeE.SchwartzL. M.WoloshinS. (2007). Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8, 53–96.
29.
GigerenzerG.GrayJ. A. M. (2011). Better doctors, better patients, better decisions: Envisioning health care 2020. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30.
GraceG. (1998). Critical policy scholarship: Reflections on the integrity of knowledge and research. In ShacklockG.SmythJ. (Eds.), Being reflexive in critical educational and social research (pp. 202–217). London: Routledge Falmer.
31.
GreggA. R.GrossS. J.BestR.MonaghanK.BajajK.SkotkoB. G.. . . WatsonM. S. (2013). ACMG statement on noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy. Genetics in Medicine, 15, 395–398.
32.
GrimesD. A.SnivelyG. R. (1999). Patients’ understanding of medical risks: Implications for genetic counseling. Obstetrics & Gynecology93(6), 910-914.
33.
HeymanB.HundtG.SandallJ.SpencerK.WilliamsC.GrellierR.PitsonL. (2006). On being at higher risk: A qualitative study of prenatal screening for chromosomal anomalies. Social Science & Medicine, 62, 2360–2372.
34.
HillM.BarrettA. N.WhiteH.ChittyL. S. (2012). Uses of cell free fetal DNA in maternal circulation. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 26, 639–654.
35.
HillM.FisherJ.ChittyL. S.MorrisS. (2012). 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. Genetics in Medicine, 14, 905–913.
36.
HillM.KarunaratnaM.LewisC.ForyaF.ChittyL. (2013). Views and preferences for the implementation of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis for single gene disorders from health professionals in the United Kingdom. American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part A, 161, 1612–1618.
37.
HofmannB. M. (2008). Why ethics should be part of health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 24, 423–429.
38.
HuntL. M.deVoogdK. B. (2003). Autonomy, danger, and choice: The moral imperative of an “at risk” pregnancy for a group of low-income Latinas in Texas. In HarthornB.OaksL. (Eds.), Risk, culture, and health inequality: Shifting perceptions of danger and blame (pp. 74–103). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
39.
JaquesA. M.SheffieldL. J.HallidayJ. L. (2005). Informed choice in women attending private clinics to undergo first trimester screening for Down syndrome. Prenatal Diagnosis, 25, 656–664. doi:10.1002/pd.1218
40.
JohnsonJ.PastuckM.MetcalfeA.ConnorsG.KrauseR.WilsonD.CuckleH. (2013). First-trimester Down syndrome screening using additional serum markers with and without nuchal translucency and cell-free DNA. Prenatal Diagnosis, 33, 1044–1049. doi:10.1002/pd.4194
41.
KellerC.SiegristM. (2009). Effect of risk communication formats on risk perception depending on numeracy. Medical Decision Making, 29(4), 483-490.
42.
KohutR. J.DeweyD.LoveE. J. (2002). Women’s knowledge of prenatal ultrasound and informed choice. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 11, 265–276.276. doi:10.1023/a:1016378415514
43.
LafargeC.MitchellK.FoxP. (2013). Women’s experiences of coping with pregnancy termination for fetal abnormality. Qualitative Health Research, 23, 924–936.
44.
LangloisS.BrockJ. (2013). Current status in non-invasive prenatal detection of Down syndrome, Trisomy 18 and Trisomy 13 using cell-free DNA in maternal plasma. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, 35, 177–181.
45.
LarionS.WarsofS. L.RomaryL.MlynarczykM.PelegD.AbuhamadA. Z. (2014). Uptake of noninvasive prenatal testing at a large academic referral center. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 211, 651.e1–651.e7.
46.
LewisC.HillM.SilcockC.DaleyR.ChittyL. S. (2014). Non-invasive prenatal testing for trisomy 21: A cross-sectional survey of service users’ views and likely uptake. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 121, 582–594. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.12579
47.
LippmanA. (1991). Prenatal genetic testing and screening: Constructing needs and reinforcing inequities. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 17(1-2), 15–50.
48.
LuptonD. (1999). Risk and the ontology of pregnant embodiment. In LuptonD. (Ed.), Risk and sociocultural theory (pp. 59–85). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
49.
LuptonD. (2011). “The best thing for the baby”: Mothers’ concepts and experiences related to promoting their infants’ health and development. Health, Risk & Society, 13, 637–651.
50.
McKechnieA. C.PridhamK.TluczekA. (2014). Preparing heart and mind for becoming a parent following a diagnosis of fetal anomaly. Qualitative Health Research. Advance online publication. 1049732314553852
Miron-ShatzT.HanochY.GraefD.SagiM. (2009). Presentation format affects comprehension and risk assessment: The case of prenatal screening. Journal of Health Communication, 14, 439–450.
NortonM.BrarH.WeissJ.KarimiA.LaurentL.CaugheyA.. . . SongK. (2012). Non-Invasive Chromosomal Evaluation (NICE) study: Results of a multi-center prospective cohort study for detection of fetal Trisomy 21 and Trisomy 18. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 207, 137.e1–137.e8.
55.
NortonM.RoseN. C.BennP. (2013). Noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy: Clinical assessment and a plea for restraint. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 121, 847–850.
56.
OkunN.SummersA.HuangT.HoffmanB.StainesA.ChitayatD.JohnsonJ. A. (2006). Prospective experience with integrated prenatal screening and first trimester combined screening for Trisomy 21 in a large Canadian urban centre. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 195, S193. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2006.10.692
57.
ÖhmanS. G.GrunewaldC.WaldenströmU. (2009). Perception of risk in relation to ultrasound screening for Down’s syndrome during pregnancy. Midwifery, 25(3), 264-276.
58.
Prenatal Screening Subcommittee of Ontario. (2015). Prenatal screening Ontario. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Available from http://www.prenatalscreeningontario.ca
59.
Public Health Agency of Canada. (2009). What mothers say: The Canadian Maternity Experiences Survey. Ottawa, Ontario: Author.
SilcockC.LiaoL.-M.HillM.ChittyL. S. (2014). Will the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing for Down’s syndrome undermine informed choice?Health Expectations. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/hex.12159
62.
Statistics Canada. (2012). Women in Canada: A gender-based statistical report (6th ed.). Ottawa, Ontario: Author.
63.
TaylorJ. B.ChockV. Y.HudginsL. (2014). NIPT in a clinical setting: An analysis of uptake in the first months of clinical availability. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 23, 72–78.
64.
TischlerR.HudginsL.BlumenfeldY. J.GreelyH. T.OrmondK. E. (2011). Noninvasive prenatal diagnosis: Pregnant women’s interest and expected uptake. Prenatal Diagnosis, 31, 1292–1299.
65.
VahanianS. A.Baraa AllafM.YehC.ChavezM. R.KinzlerW. L.VintzileosA. M. (2013). Patient acceptance of non-invasive testing for fetal aneuploidy via cell-free fetal DNA. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine, 27, 106–109.
66.
van den HeuvelA.ChittyL.DormandyE.NewsonA.DeansZ.AttwoodS.. . . MarteauT. M. (2010). Will the introduction of non-invasive prenatal diagnostic testing erode informed choices? An experimental study of health care professionals. Patient Education and Counseling, 78, 24–28.
67.
Van den HofM.WilsonR. (2005). Fetal soft markers in obstetrical ultrasound (SOGC Clinical Practice Guideline). Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology Canada, 27, 592–612.
68.
VanstoneM.KingC.de VrijerB.NiskerJ. (2014). Non-invasive prenatal testing: Ethics and policy considerations. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, 36, 515–526.
69.
VanstoneM.YacoubK.WinsorS.GIacominiM.NiskerJ. (2015). What is “NIPT”? Divergent characterizations of non-invasive prenatal testing strategies. American Journal of Bioethics: Empirical Bioethics, 6(1), 54–67.
70.
WangJ.-C.SahooT.SchonbergS.KopitaK. A.RossL.PatekK.StromC. M. (2015). Discordant noninvasive prenatal testing and cytogenetic results: A study of 109 consecutive cases. Genetics in Medicine, 17, 234–236.
71.
WilsonR. (2014). Prenatal screening, diagnosis and pregnancy management of fetal neural tube defects (SOGC Clinical Practice Guideline). Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology Canada, 36, 927–939.
72.
WilsonR. D.LangloisS.JohnsonJ. A. (2007). Mid-trimester amniocentesis fetal loss rate. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, 29, 586–595.
73.
WrightC.BurtonH. (2009). The use of cell-free fetal nucleic acids in maternal blood for non-invasive prenatal diagnosis. Human Reproduction Update, 15, 139–151.
74.
WrightC.WeiY.HigginsJ.SagooG. (2012). Non-invasive prenatal diagnostic test accuracy for fetal sex using cell-free DNA a review and meta-analysis. BMC Research Notes, 5(1), Article 476.
