- freely available
It’s More Than a Blood Test: Patients’ Perspectives on Noninvasive Prenatal Testing
AbstractNoninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) offers pregnant women a new risk assessment tool for fetal aneuploidy that is superior to conventional screening tests. We conducted focus groups with women who were currently pregnant or had recently delivered in the past year to characterize their perspectives about NIPT and to explore factors they would consider during decision making about its use. Women identified accuracy, early timing, testing ease, and determination of fetal sex as advantages of NIPT over other screens, and the noninvasive method of NIPT as an advantage over diagnostic tests. False positive and false negative results, anxiety, cost and insurance coverage were seen as disadvantages of NIPT. Women who do not want fetal aneuploidy information most likely will not undergo NIPT, despite its advantages over other screening tests. However, given its advantages, the decision to have NIPT is straightforward for women who want genetic information about the fetus. Women emphasized the need to make autonomous, private, and informed choices about NIPT, as they would with any prenatal genetic testing option. These perspectives may guide clinicians to conduct effective and clinically relevant counseling with pregnant women who consider utilizing this new genetic technology.
Share & Cite This Article
Farrell, R.M.; Mercer, M.B.; Agatisa, P.K.; Smith, M.B.; Philipson, E. It’s More Than a Blood Test: Patients’ Perspectives on Noninvasive Prenatal Testing. J. Clin. Med. 2014, 3, 614-631.View more citation formats
Farrell RM, Mercer MB, Agatisa PK, Smith MB, Philipson E. It’s More Than a Blood Test: Patients’ Perspectives on Noninvasive Prenatal Testing. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2014; 3(2):614-631.Chicago/Turabian Style
Farrell, Ruth M.; Mercer, Mary B.; Agatisa, Patricia K.; Smith, Marissa B.; Philipson, Elliot. 2014. "It’s More Than a Blood Test: Patients’ Perspectives on Noninvasive Prenatal Testing." J. Clin. Med. 3, no. 2: 614-631.