J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2019 Feb 7. pii: S1701-2163(18)30898-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2018.11.003. [Epub ahead of print]
Canadian Pregnant Women's Preferences Regarding NIPT for Down Syndrome: The Information They Want, How They Want to Get It, and With Whom They Want to Discuss It.
Laberge AM1, Birko S2, Lemoine MÈ2, Le Clerc-Blain J3, Haidar H4, Affdal AO2, Dupras C4, Ravitsky V2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
This study sought to assess Canadian pregnant women's and their partners' preferences for information about non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT).
METHODS:
Pregnant women and their partners across Canada were surveyed as part of the Personalized Genomics for prenatal Aneuploidy Screening Using maternal blood (PEGASUS) study.
RESULTS:
A total of 882 pregnant women and 395 partners participated. Women preferred being informed by a physician (77.2%). They preferred getting information ahead of time, except for information about resources for families with Down syndrome, which they preferred getting with test results. More than half thought that written consent is important (63.7%) and could decide whether to do NIPT on the day they received the information (54.9%). Women preferred to be informed of results by telephone (43.7%) or in person (28%), but they preferred in person if they were considered at high risk for Down syndrome on the basis of the results (76%). The partner was the person whose input was considered most important (62.6%). Partners' preferences were similar, except that partners tended to want information later (at the time of the test or with the results) and felt that their opinion was not considered as highly by health professionals.
CONCLUSION:
Canadian women want information about NIPT early, in person, by a knowledgeable physician. Partners also want to be informed and involved in the decision-making process.
Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
KEYWORDS:
Down syndrome; NIPT; Non-invasive prenatal testing; decision making; preferences; survey
- PMID:
- 30738740
- DOI:
- 10.1016/j.jogc.2018.11.003
Free full text
No comments:
Post a Comment