The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10897-017-0118-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
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.
ESM 1 (DOCX 21 kb)10897_2017_118_MOESM1_ESM.docx
ACMG. (2013). American College of Medical Genetics statement on noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy. Genetics in Medicine, 15, 395–398. CrossRef
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
Chew, L., Bradley, K., & Boyko, E. (2004). Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy. Family Medicine, 36, 588–594. PubMed
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.
Mikamo, S., & Nakatsuka, M. (2015). Knowledge and Attitudes toward Non-invasive Prenatal Testing among Pregnant Japanese Women. Acta Med Okayama, 69, 155–163. PubMed
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
Statistics Netherlands (2016) [www. Document]. URL https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb. Accessed 1 May 2016.
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
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
- Women’s Experience with Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing and Emotional Well-being and Satisfaction after Test-Results
Rachèl V. van Schendel
G. C. M. Lieve Page-Christiaens
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
for the Dutch NIPT Consortium
- Springer US