Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Original Research

Women’s Experience with Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing and Emotional Well-being and Satisfaction after Test-Results

Authors: Rachèl V. van Schendel, G. C. M. Lieve Page-Christiaens, Lean Beulen, Caterina M. Bilardo, Marjon A. de Boer, Audrey B. C. Coumans, Brigitte H. W. Faas, Irene M. van Langen, Klaske D. Lichtenbelt, Merel C. van Maarle, Merryn V. E. Macville, Dick Oepkes, Eva Pajkrt, Lidewij Henneman, for the Dutch NIPT Consortium

Published in: Journal of Genetic Counseling | Issue 6/2017

Abstract

Increasingly, high-risk pregnant women opt for non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) instead of invasive diagnostic testing. Since NIPT is less accurate than invasive testing, a normal NIPT result might leave women less reassured. A questionnaire study was performed among pregnant women with elevated risk for fetal aneuploidy based on first-trimester combined test (risk ≥1:200) or medical history, who were offered NIPT in the nationwide Dutch TRIDENT study. Pre- and post-test questionnaires (n = 682) included measures on: experiences with NIPT procedure, feelings of reassurance, anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, STAI), child-related anxiety (PRAQ-R), and satisfaction. The majority (96.1%) were glad to have been offered NIPT. Most (68.5%) perceived the waiting time for NIPT results (mean: 15 days, range 5–32) as (much) too long. Most women with a normal NIPT result felt reassured (80.9%) or somewhat reassured (15.7%). Levels of anxiety and child-related anxiety were significantly lower after receiving a normal NIPT result as compared to the moment of intake (p < 0.001). Women with inadequate health literacy or a medical history (e.g. previous child with trisomy) experienced significantly higher post-test-result anxiety (Mean (M) STAI = 31.6 and 30.0, respectively) compared to those with adequate health literacy (M = 28.6) and no medical history (M = 28.6), indicating these women might benefit from extra information and/or guidance when communicating NIPT test-results. Introducing NIPT as an alternative to invasive testing, led to an offer that satisfied and largely reassured high-risk pregnant women.

Available only for authorised users

ACMG. (2013). American College of Medical Genetics statement on noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy. Genetics in Medicine, 15, 395–398.CrossRef

Allyse, M., Sayres, L. C., Goodspeed, T. A., & Cho, M. K. (2014). Attitudes towards Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for aneuploidy among United States adults of reproductive age. Journal of Perinatology, 34, 429–434.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bekker, H. L., Legare, F., Stacey, D., O’Connor, A., & Lemyre, L. (2003). Is anxiety an appropriate measure of decision aid effectiveness: a systematic review. Patient Education and Counselling, 50, 255–262.CrossRef

Brady, P., Brison, N., Van Den Bogaert, K., de Ravel, T., Peeters, H., Van Esch, H., et al. (2016). Clinical implementation of NIPT- technical and biological challenges. Clinical Genetics, 89, 523–530.CrossRefPubMed

Chetty, S., Garabedian, M. J., & Norton, M. E. (2013). Uptake of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in women following positive aneuploidy screening. Prenatal Diagnosis, 33, 542–546.CrossRefPubMed

Chew, L., Bradley, K., & Boyko, E. (2004). Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy. Family Medicine, 36, 588–594.PubMed

Dondorp, W., de Wert, G., Bombard, Y., Bianchi, D. W., Bergmann, C., Borry, P., et al. (2015). Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy and beyond: challenges of responsible innovation in prenatal screening. European Journal of Human Genetics, 23, 1438–1450.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Faisal-Cury, A., & Rossi Menezes, P. (2007). Prevalence of anxiety and depression during pregnancy in a private setting sample. Archives Womens Mental Health, 10, 25–32.CrossRef

Gil, M. M., Quezada, M. S., Revello, R., Akolekar, R., & Nicolaides, K. H. (2015). Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for fetal aneuploidies: updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 45, 249–266.CrossRef

Gitsels-van der Wal, J., Verhoeven, P. S., Mannien, J., Martin, L., Reinders, H. S., Spelten, E., & Hutton, E. K. (2014). Factors affecting the uptake of prenatal screening tests for congenital anomalies; a multicentre prospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 14, 1–12.CrossRef

Green, J. M., Hewison, J., Bekker, H. L., Bryant, L. D., Cuckle, H. S. (2004). Psychosocial aspects of genetic screening of pregnant women and newborns: a systematic review. Health Technololy Assessment, 8:iii, ix–x, 1–109.

Huizink, A. C., Mulder, E. J. H., Robles de Medina, P. G., Visser, G. H. A., & Buitelaar, J. K. (2004). Is pregnancy anxiety a distinctive syndrome? Early Human Development, 79, 81–91.CrossRefPubMed

Lewis, C., Silcock, C., & Chitty, L. S. (2013). Non-invasive prenatal testing for Down’s Syndrome: pregnant women’s views and likely uptake. Public Health Genomics, 16, 223–232.CrossRefPubMed

Lewis, C., Hill, M., & Chitty, L. S. (2016). Women’s Experiences and Preferences for Service Delivery of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Aneuploidy in a Public Health Setting: A Mixed Methods Study. PLoS One, 11, e0153147.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Lou, S., Mikkelsen, L., Hvidman, L., Petersen, O. B., & Nielsen, C. P. (2015). Does screening for Down’s syndrome cause anxiety in pregnant women? A systematic review. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 94, 15–27.CrossRefPubMed

Mancuso, R. A., Schetter, C. D., Rini, C. M., Roesch, S. C., & Hobel, C. J. (2004). Maternal Prenatal Anxiety and Corticotropin-Releasing Hormone Associated With Timing of Delivery. Psychosomatic Medicine, 66, 762–769.CrossRefPubMed

Marteau, T. M., & Bekker, H. (1992). The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 31, 301–306.CrossRefPubMed

Michie, S., Dormandy, E., & Marteau, T. M. (2002). The multi-dimensional measure of informed choice: a validation study. Patient Education and Counseling, 48, 87–91.CrossRefPubMed

Mikamo, S., & Nakatsuka, M. (2015). Knowledge and Attitudes toward Non-invasive Prenatal Testing among Pregnant Japanese Women. Acta Med Okayama, 69, 155–163.PubMed

Mulder, E. J. H., Robles de Medina, P. G., Huizink, A. C., Van den Bergh, B. R. H., Buitelaar, J. K., & Visser, G. H. A. (2002). Prenatal maternal stress: effects on pregnancy and the (unborn) child. Early Human Development, 70, 3–14.CrossRefPubMed

Nakata, N., Wang, Y., & Bhatt, S. (2010). Trends in prenatal screening and diagnostic testing among women referred for advanced maternal age. Prenatal Diagnosis, 30, 198–206.PubMed

Nakic Rados, S., Kosec, V., & Gall, V. (2013). The psychological effects of prenatal diagnostic procedures: maternal anxiety before and after invasive and noninvasive procedures. Prenatal Diagnosis, 33, 1194–1200.CrossRefPubMed

Oepkes, D., Page-Christiaens, G. C., Bax, C. J., Bekker, M. N., Bilardo, C. M., Boon, E. M., et al. (2016). Trial by Dutch laboratories for evaluation of non-invasive prenatal testing. Part I-Clinical impact. Prenatal Diagnosis, 36, 1083–1090.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Sarkar, P., Bergman, K., Fisk, N. M., & Glover, V. (2006). Maternal anxiety at amniocentesis and plasma cortisol. Prenatal Diagnosis, 26, 505–509.CrossRefPubMed

Statistics Netherlands (2016) [www. Document]. URL https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb. Accessed 1 May 2016.

Tabor, A., & Alfirevic, Z. (2010). Update on procedure-related risks for prenatal diagnosis techniques. Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy, 27, 1–7.CrossRefPubMed

Tamminga, S., van Schendel, R. V., Rommers, W., Bilardo, C. M., Pajkrt, E., Dondorp, W. J., et al. (2015). Changing to NIPT as a first-tier screening test and future perspectives: opinions of health professionals. Prenatal Diagnosis, 35, 1316–1323.CrossRefPubMed

Taylor, J., Chock, V., & Hudgins, L. (2014). NIPT in a clinical setting: an analysis of uptake in the first months of clinical availability. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 23, 72–78.CrossRefPubMed

van der Bij, A. K., de Weerd, S., Cikot, R. J. L. M., Steegers, E. A. P., & Braspenning, J. C. C. (2003). Validation of the Dutch Short Form of the State Scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: Considerations for Usage in Screening Outcomes. Public Health Genomics, 6, 84–87.CrossRef

van Schendel, R. V., Dondorp, W. J., Timmermans, D. R., van Hugte, E. J., de Boer, A., Pajkrt, E., et al. (2015). NIPT-based screening for Down syndrome and beyond: what do pregnant women think? Prenatal Diagnosis, 35, 598–604.CrossRefPubMed

van Schendel, R. V., Page-Christiaens, G. C., Beulen, L., Bilardo, C. M., de Boer, M. A., Coumans, A. B., et al. (2016). Trial by Dutch laboratories for evaluation of non-invasive prenatal testing. Part II-Women’s perspectives. Prenatal Diagnosis, 36, 1091–1098.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Vanstone, M., Yacoub, K., Giacomini, M., Hulan, D., & McDonald, S. (2015). Women’s Experiences of Publicly Funded Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing in Ontario, Canada: Considerations for Health Technology Policy-Making. Qualitative Health Research, 25, 1069–1084.CrossRefPubMed

Wittman, A. T., Hashmi, S. S., Mendez-Figueroa, H., Nassef, S., Stevens, B., & Singletary, C. N. (2016). Patient Perception of Negative Noninvasive Prenatal Testing Results. American Journal of Perinatal Reports, 6, e391–e406.CrossRef

Title: Women’s Experience with Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing and Emotional Well-being and Satisfaction after Test-Results
Authors: Rachèl V. van Schendel
G. C. M. Lieve Page-Christiaens
Lean Beulen
Caterina M. Bilardo
Marjon A. de Boer
Audrey B. C. Coumans
Brigitte H. W. Faas
Irene M. van Langen
Klaske D. Lichtenbelt
Merel C. van Maarle
Merryn V. E. Macville
Dick Oepkes
Eva Pajkrt
Lidewij Henneman
for the Dutch NIPT Consortium
Publication date: 01-12-2017
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of Genetic Counseling / Issue 6/2017
Print ISSN: 1059-7700
Electronic ISSN: 1573-3599
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-017-0118-3

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Women’s Experience with Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing and Emotional Well-being and Satisfaction after Test-Results

Abstract

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2017

A Qualitative Look into Israeli Genetic Experts’ Insights Regarding Culturally Competent Genetic Counseling and Recommendations for Its Enhancement

Influence of Genetic Counseling Graduate Program Websites on Student Application Decisions

When to Consider Risk-Reducing Mastectomy in BRCA1/BRCA2 Mutation Carriers with Advanced Stage Ovarian Cancer: a Case Study Illustrating the Genetic Counseling Challenges

Is Low FMR1 CGG Repeat Length in Males Correlated with Family History of BRCA-Associated Cancers? An Exploratory Analysis of Medical Records

“They Just Want to Know” - Genetic Health Professionals' Beliefs About Why Parents Want to Know their Child's Carrier Status

Connecting Gaucher and Parkinson Disease: Considerations for Clinical and Research Genetic Counseling Settings