Prenatal diagnosis · 2022
Factors involved in the decision to decline prenatal screening with noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT).
СтатьяНазвание 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.
van Prooyen Schuurman Lisanne, van der Meij Karuna, van Ravesteyn Nicolien, Crombag Neeltje, Gitsels-van der Wal Janneke, Kooij Caroline, Martin Linda, Peters Ingrid, Polak Marike, van Vliet-Lachotzki Elsbeth, Galjaard Robert-Jan, Henneman Lidewij, Dutch NIPT Consortium
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To investigate factors involved in the decision to decline prenatal screening with noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT).
METHOD: A questionnaire study was conducted among 219 pregnant women in the Netherlands who had declined prenatal screening with NIPT (TRIDENT-2 study). Respondents were selectively recruited from three hospitals and 19 midwifery practices, primarily located in or near socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods. 44.3% of the respondents were of non-Western ethnic origin and 64.4% were religious.
RESULTS: Most respondents (77.2%) found the decision to decline NIPT easy to make, and 59.8% had already made the decision before information about NIPT was offered. These respondents were more often religious, multigravida, and had adequate health literacy. The main reasons to decline NIPT were "I would never terminate my pregnancy" (57.1%) and "every child is welcome" (56.2%). For 16.9% of respondents, the out-of-pocket costs (175 euros) played a role in the decision, and the women in this group were more often nonreligious, primigravida, and had inadequate health literacy.
CONCLUSION: The primary factors involved in the decision to decline NIPT were related to personal values and beliefs, consistent with autonomous choice. Out-of-pocket costs of NIPT hinder equal access for some pregnant women.
METHOD: A questionnaire study was conducted among 219 pregnant women in the Netherlands who had declined prenatal screening with NIPT (TRIDENT-2 study). Respondents were selectively recruited from three hospitals and 19 midwifery practices, primarily located in or near socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods. 44.3% of the respondents were of non-Western ethnic origin and 64.4% were religious.
RESULTS: Most respondents (77.2%) found the decision to decline NIPT easy to make, and 59.8% had already made the decision before information about NIPT was offered. These respondents were more often religious, multigravida, and had adequate health literacy. The main reasons to decline NIPT were "I would never terminate my pregnancy" (57.1%) and "every child is welcome" (56.2%). For 16.9% of respondents, the out-of-pocket costs (175 euros) played a role in the decision, and the women in this group were more often nonreligious, primigravida, and had inadequate health literacy.
CONCLUSION: The primary factors involved in the decision to decline NIPT were related to personal values and beliefs, consistent with autonomous choice. Out-of-pocket costs of NIPT hinder equal access for some pregnant women.