4.0 Article

Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Down's Syndrome: Pregnant Women's Views and Likely Uptake

期刊

PUBLIC HEALTH GENOMICS
卷 16, 期 5, 页码 223-232

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000353523

关键词

Aneuploidy; Cell-free fetal DNA; Down's syndrome; Non-invasive prenatal testing

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) [RP-PG-0707-10107]
  2. Great Ormond Street Hospital Children's Charity
  3. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Great Ormond Street Hospital
  4. National Institute for Health Research [RP-PG-0707-10107] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. Great Ormond Street Hospital Childrens Charity [V1253] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for Down's syndrome into routine state-funded antenatal care in the UK is approaching. Methods: We conducted qualitative one-to-one interviews with 40 pregnant women to ascertain their views on using NIPT for Down's syndrome. Results: The overwhelming majority of women viewed NIPT as a positive advancement in prenatal care, highlighting numerous practical and psychological advantages of a safe test that was highly accurate and could be conducted early in pregnancy. Concerns raised were that testing could become routinised, and that pressure to test might occur with women feeling less justified in declining a blood test that is available and offered by trusted health professionals; the impact on the disabled community and stigma for women who decline testing was also noted. Nevertheless, the vast majority of women said they would be likely to use NIPT, including half of the women who currently decline screening. Women's preference was for pre- and post-test counselling to be delivered by a midwife. Conclusion: The successful introduction of NIPT into routine prenatal care will require guidelines and counselling strategies which ensure women are offered this test in a way which safeguards informed consent. (C) 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据