Top

Published in:

01-12-2020 | Trisomy 21 | Research article

Qualitative investigation of the factors that generate ambivalent feelings in women who give birth after receiving negative results from non-invasive prenatal testing

Authors: Junko Yotsumoto, Akihiko Sekizawa, Satomi Inoue, Nobuhiro Suzumori, Osamu Samura, Takahiro Yamada, Kiyonori Miura, Hideaki Masuzaki, Hideaki Sawai, Jun Murotsuki, Haruka Hamanoue, Yoshimasa Kamei, Toshiaki Endo, Akimune Fukushima, Yukiko Katagiri, Naoki Takeshita, Masaki Ogawa, Haruki Nishizawa, Yoko Okamoto, Shinya Tairaku, Takashi Kaji, Kazuhisa Maeda, Keiichi Matsubara, Masanobu Ogawa, Hisao Osada, Takashi Ohba, Yukie Kawano, Aiko Sasaki, Haruhiko Sago, Japan NIPT Consortium

Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Issue 1/2020

Abstract

Background

Women who receive negative results from non-invasive prenatal genetic testing (NIPT) may find that they later have mixed or ambivalent feelings, for example, feelings of accepting NIPT and regretting undergoing the test. This study aimed to investigate the factors generating ambivalent feelings among women who gave birth after having received negative results from NIPT.

Methods

A questionnaire was sent to women who received a negative NIPT result, and a contents analysis was conducted focusing on ambivalent expressions for those 1562 women who responded the questionnaire. The qualitative data gathered from the questionnaire were analyzed using the N-Vivo software package.

Results

Environmental factors, genetic counseling-related factors, and increased anticipatory anxiety, affected the feeling of ambivalence among pregnant women. Furthermore, pregnant women desired more information regarding the detailed prognosis for individuals with Down syndrome and living with them and/or termination, assuming the possibility that they were positive.

Conclusions

Three major interrelated factors affected the feeling of ambivalence in women. Highlighting and discussing such factors during genetic counseling may resolve some of these ambivalences, thereby enhancing the quality of decisions made by pregnant women.

Nakic Rados S, Kosec V, Gall V. The psychological effects of prenatal diagnostic procedures: maternalanxiety before and after invasive and noninvasive procedures. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33(12):1194–200.CrossRef

Richmond Z, Fleischer R, Chopra M, Pinner J, D'Souza M, Fridgant Y, Hyett J. The impact of non-invasive prenatal testing on anxiety in women considered at high or low risk for aneuploidy after combined first trimester screening. Prenat Diagn. 2017;37(10):975–82.CrossRef

van Schendel RV, Page-Christiaens GC, Beulen L, Bilardo CM, de Boer MA, Coumans AB, Faas BH, van Langen IM, Lichtenbelt KD, van Maarle MC, et al. Trial by Dutch laboratories for evaluation of non-invasive prenatal testing. Part II-women's perspectives. Prenat Diagn. 2016;36(12):1091–8.CrossRef

Lo TK, Chan KY, Kan AS, So PL, Kong CW, Mak SL, Lee CN. Decision outcomes in women offered noninvasive prenatal test (NIPT) for positive down screening results. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019;32(2):348–50.CrossRef

Garcia E, Timmermans DR, van Leeuwen E. Rethinking autonomy in the context of prenatal screening decision-making. Prenat Diagn. 2008;28(2):115–20.CrossRef

Koletzko SH, La Marca-Ghaemmaghami P, Brandstatter V. Mixed expectations: effects of goal ambivalence during pregnancy on maternal well-being, stress, and coping. Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2015;7(3):249–74.CrossRef

Jallinoja P, Hakonen A, Aro AR, Niemela P, Hietala M, Lonnqvist J, Peltonen L, Aula P. Attitudes towards genetic testing: analysis of contradictions. Soc Sci Med. 1998;46(10):1367–74.CrossRef

Dormandy E, Michie S, Hooper R, Marteau TM. Informed choice in antenatal Down syndrome screening: a cluster-randomised trial of combined versus separate visit testing. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;61(1):56–64.CrossRef

Lewis C, Hill M, Chitty LS. A qualitative study looking at informed choice in the context of non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy. Prenat Diagn. 2016;36(9):875–81.CrossRef

10.

Conner M, Povey R, Sparks P, James R, Shepherd R. Moderating role of attitudinal ambivalence within the theory of planned behaviour. Br J Soc Psychol. 2003;42(Pt 1):75–94.CrossRef

11.

Yotsumoto J, Sekizawa A, Suzumori N, Yamada T, Samura O, Nishiyama M, Miura K, Sawai H, Murotsuki J, Kitagawa M, et al. A survey on awareness of genetic counseling for non-invasive prenatal testing: the first year experience in Japan. J Hum Genet. 2016;61(12):995–1001.CrossRef

12.

Samura O, Sekizawa A, Suzumori N, Sasaki A, Wada S, Hamanoue H, Hirahara F, Sawai H, Nakamura H, Yamada T, et al. Current status of non-invasive prenatal testing in Japan. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2017;43(8):1245–55.CrossRef

13.

Reid B, Sinclair M, Barr O, Dobbs F, Crealey G. A meta-synthesis of pregnant women's decision-making processes with regard to antenatal screening for Down syndrome. Soc Sci Med. 2009;69(11):1561–73.CrossRef

14.

Hurford E, Hawkins A, Hudgins L, Taylor J. The decision to continue a pregnancy affected by Down syndrome: timing of decision and satisfaction with receiving a prenatal diagnosis. J Genet Couns. 2013;22(5):587–93.CrossRef

15.

Reed AR, Berrier KL. A qualitative study of factors influencing decision-making after prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. J Genet Couns. 2016;26(4):814.CrossRef

16.

van Schendel RV, Page-Christiaens G, Beulen L, Bilardo CM, de Boer MA, Coumans ABC, Faas BHW, van Langen IM, Lichtenbelt KD, van Maarle MC, et al. Women’s experience with non-invasive prenatal testing and emotional well-being and satisfaction after test-results. J Genet Couns. 2017;26(6):1348–56.CrossRef

17.

Williams C, Alderson P, Farsides B. Is nondirectiveness possible within the context of antenatal screening and testing? Soc Sci Med. 2002;54(3):339–47.CrossRef

18.

Perry CL, Henry MJ. Exploring adoption with clients: the need for adoption education within the genetic counseling profession. J Genet Couns. 2010;19(4):305–14.CrossRef

19.

Allison SJ, Stafford J, Anumba DO. The effect of stress and anxiety associated with maternal prenatal diagnosis on feto-maternal attachment. BMC Womens Health. 2011;11:33.CrossRef

20.

McMahon CA, Ungerer JA, Beaurepaire J, Tennant C, Saunders D. Anxiety during pregnancy and fetal attachment after in-vitro fertilization conception. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(1):176–82.CrossRef

21.

Fisher J, Wynter K, Hammarberg K, McBain J, Gibson F, Boivin J, McMahon C. Age, mode of conception, health service use and pregnancy health: a prospective cohort study of Australian women. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13:88.CrossRef

22.

Hjelmstedt A, Widstrom AM, Collins A. Psychological correlates of prenatal attachment in women who conceived after in vitro fertilization and women who conceived naturally. Birth. 2006;33(4):303–10.CrossRef

23.

Tendais I, Figueiredo B. Parents’ anxiety and depression symptoms after successful infertility treatment and spontaneous conception: does singleton/twin pregnancy matter? Hum Reprod. 2016;31(10):2303–12.CrossRef

24.

Kleinveld JH, Timmermans DR, de Smit DJ, Ader HJ, van der Wal G, ten Kate LP. Does prenatal screening influence anxiety levels of pregnant women? A longitudinal randomised controlled trial. Prenat Diagn. 2006;26(4):354–61.CrossRef

25.

van den Berg M, Timmermans DR, ten Kate LP, van Vugt JM, van der Wal G. Informed decision making in the context of prenatal screening. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;63(1–2):110–7.CrossRef

26.

Richards EG, Sangi-Haghpeykar H, McGuire AL, Van den Veyver IB, Fruhman G. Pregnant patients’ risk perception of prenatal test results with uncertain fetal clinical significance: ultrasound versus advanced genetic testing. Prenat Diagn. 2015;35(12):1213–7.CrossRef

27.

Sapp JC, Hull SC, Duffer S, Zornetzer S, Sutton E, Marteau TM, Biesecker BB. Ambivalence toward undergoing invasive prenatal testing: an exploration of its origins. Prenat Diagn. 2010;30(1):77–82.PubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Qualitative investigation of the factors that generate ambivalent feelings in women who give birth after receiving negative results from non-invasive prenatal testing
Authors: Junko Yotsumoto
Akihiko Sekizawa
Satomi Inoue
Nobuhiro Suzumori
Osamu Samura
Takahiro Yamada
Kiyonori Miura
Hideaki Masuzaki
Hideaki Sawai
Jun Murotsuki
Haruka Hamanoue
Yoshimasa Kamei
Toshiaki Endo
Akimune Fukushima
Yukiko Katagiri
Naoki Takeshita
Masaki Ogawa
Haruki Nishizawa
Yoko Okamoto
Shinya Tairaku
Takashi Kaji
Kazuhisa Maeda
Keiichi Matsubara
Masanobu Ogawa
Hisao Osada
Takashi Ohba
Yukie Kawano
Aiko Sasaki
Haruhiko Sago
Japan NIPT Consortium
Publication date: 01-12-2020
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keywords: Trisomy 21
Anxiety
Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-2763-z

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Qualitative investigation of the factors that generate ambivalent feelings in women who give birth after receiving negative results from non-invasive prenatal testing

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Hygiene along the continuum of care in the early post-natal period: an observational study in Nigeria

Longitudinal adrenal gland measurements and growth trajectories as risk markers for late preterm delivery

Correction to: Risk factors of premature rupture of membranes in public hospitals at Mekele city, Tigray, a case control study

Sudden onset of syncope and disseminated intravascular coagulation at 14 weeks of pregnancy: a case report

Diabetes risk status and physical activity in pregnancy: U.S. BRFSS 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017

The effect of quitting water pipe during pregnancy on anthropometric measurements at birth: a population-based prospective cohort study in the south of Iran