Prenatal diagnosis · 2025
Towards a Responsible Implementation of NIPT as a First-Tier Test in Canada: Decision-Makers' Perspectives.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Roy Marie-Christine, Malo Marie-Françoise, Morel-Laforce Tierry, Ravitsky Vardit, Laberge Anne-Marie
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To explore decision makers' perspectives on the conditions for a responsible implementation of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as a first-tier test in Canadian provinces' healthcare systems.
METHOD: A qualitative study was conducted with 16 Canadian decision makers who were interviewed between February 2021 and July 2022. After anonymization and transcription, interviews were coded inductively using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Our interviews showed the complexity of the decision making environment regarding prenatal screening funding. Participants agreed that NIPT is superior to maternal serum screening as a first-tier test, but they also recognized that first-tier NIPT has limits and barriers. They described the following conditions for its responsible implementation: (1) need for time and evidence; (2) taking stakeholders' perspectives into account; (3) limit costs for the healthcare system; (4) ensure appropriate logistical conditions and harmonize the test offer; (5) ensure appropriate clinical services; (6) ensure informed consent; (7) ensure the test is presented as an individual choice to avoid eugenic concerns.
CONCLUSION: Multiple barriers and issues need to be addressed before moving NIPT from second- to first-tier. Decision makers' perspectives should be contrasted with those of other important stakeholders, including pregnant people, disability advocates and healthcare professionals.
METHOD: A qualitative study was conducted with 16 Canadian decision makers who were interviewed between February 2021 and July 2022. After anonymization and transcription, interviews were coded inductively using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Our interviews showed the complexity of the decision making environment regarding prenatal screening funding. Participants agreed that NIPT is superior to maternal serum screening as a first-tier test, but they also recognized that first-tier NIPT has limits and barriers. They described the following conditions for its responsible implementation: (1) need for time and evidence; (2) taking stakeholders' perspectives into account; (3) limit costs for the healthcare system; (4) ensure appropriate logistical conditions and harmonize the test offer; (5) ensure appropriate clinical services; (6) ensure informed consent; (7) ensure the test is presented as an individual choice to avoid eugenic concerns.
CONCLUSION: Multiple barriers and issues need to be addressed before moving NIPT from second- to first-tier. Decision makers' perspectives should be contrasted with those of other important stakeholders, including pregnant people, disability advocates and healthcare professionals.