Non-invasive prenatal screening for trisomy 21: What women want and are willing to pay

Patient Education and Counseling

Volumn 93, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 641-645

  Verweij, E Joanne ^a   Oepkes, Dick ^a   de Vries, Marieke ^a,b   van den Akker, M Elske ^a   van den Akker, Eline S ^c   de Boer, Marjon A ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c Department of Social Psychology Tilburg University ^*  (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Down syndrome; Informed decision making; Non invasive prenatal testing (NIPT); Non invasive testing; Prenatal screening; Trisomy 21; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FEMALE; FIRST TRIMESTER PREGNANCY; GENETIC SCREENING; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; INCOME; MIDWIFE; NETHERLANDS; NON INVASIVE PROCEDURE; NORMAL HUMAN; PATIENT COUNSELING; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PREGNANT WOMAN; PRENATAL SCREENING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; TRISOMY 21; CHROMOSOME 21; DECISION MAKING; DOWN SYNDROME; ECONOMICS; FEE; GENETICS; INFORMED CONSENT; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PROCEDURES; SOCIOECONOMICS; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; CHROMOSOMES, HUMAN, PAIR 21; DECISION MAKING; DOWN SYNDROME; FEES AND CHARGES; FEMALE; HEALTH EXPENDITURES; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; NETHERLANDS; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; QUESTIONNAIRES; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84888372934     PISSN: 07383991     EISSN: 18735134     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.08.006     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Verweij E.J., van den Oever J.M., de Boer M.A., Boon E.M., Oepkes D., Diagnostic Accuracy of noninvasive detection of fetal trisomy 21 in maternal blood: a systematic review. Fetal Diagn Ther 2012, 31:81-86.
2. Van den Berg M., Timmermans D.R., Kleinveld J.H., Garcia E., van Vugt J.M., van der Wal G. Accepting or declining the offer of prenatal screening for congenital defects: test uptake and women's reasons. Prenat Diagn 2005, 25:84-90.
3. Aitken R.C. Measurement of feelings using visual analogue scales. Proc R Soc Med 1969, 62:989-993.
4. Donaldson C., Farrar S., Mapp T., Walker A., Macphee S. Assessing community values in health care: is the willingness to pay method feasible?. Health Care Anal 1997, 5:7-29.
5. Smith R.D. Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care: a critical assessment. Health Econ 2003, 12:609-628.
6. Ryan M., Watson V. Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. Health Econ 2009, 18:389-401.
7. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek [Statistics Netherlands; WWW document]. URL http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/%3FVW=T%26DM=SLNL%26PA=37520%26LA=NL.
8. Fracheboud J, van Agt HME, de Koning HJ. Report: Landelijke inventarisatie van verrichtingen in het kader van de prenatale screening op Downsyndroom en het Structureel Echoscopisch Onderzoek-o.b.v. beschikbare data; 2008-2010 [National inventory of proceedings in prenatal screening for Down Syndrome en the 20 week anomaly scan based on data between 2008-2010].
9. Kooij L., Tymstra T., Berg P. The attitude of women toward current and future possibilities of diagnostic testing in maternal blood using fetal DNA. Prenat Diagn 2009, 29:164-168.
10. Tischler R., Hudgins L., Blumenfeld Y.J., Greely H.T., Ormond K.E. Noninvasive prenatal diagnosis: pregnant women's interest and expected uptake. Prenat Diagn 2011, 13:1292-1299.
11. Committee Opinion No.545 Noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2012, 120:1532-1534.
12. Liljas B., Blumenschein K. On hypothetical bias and calibration in cost-benefit studies. Health Policy 2000, 52:53-70.
13. Zamerowski S.T., Lumley M.A., Arreola R.A., Dukes K., Sullivan L. Favorable attitudes toward testing for chromosomal abnormalities via analysis of fetal cells in maternal blood. Genet Med 2001, 3:301-309.
14. Schoonen M., Wildschut H., Essink-Bot M.L., Peters I., Steegers E., de Koning H. The provision of information and informed decision-making on prenatal screening for Down syndrome: a questionnaire- and register-based survey in a non-selected population. Patient Educ Couns 2011, [Epub ahead of print].
15. Dormandy E., Michie S., Hooper R., Marteau T.M. Low uptake of prenatal screening for Down syndrome in minority ethnic groups and socially deprived groups: a reflection of women's attitudes or a failure to facilitate informed choice. Int J Epidemiol 2005, 34:346-352.
16. Fransen M.P., Essink-Bot M.L., Oenema A., Mackenbach J.P., Steegers E.A., Wildschut H.I. Ethnic differences in determinants of participation and non-participation in prenatal screening for Down syndrome: a theoretical framework. Prenat Diagn 2007, 10:938-950.
17. Fransen M.P., Wildschut H.I., Mackenbach J.P., Steegers E.A., Galjaard R.J., Essink-Bot M.L. Ethnic and socio-economic differences in uptake of prenatal diagnostic tests for Down's syndrome. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2010, 151:158-162.
18. Rowe R.E., Garcia J., Davidson L.L. Social and ethnic inequalities in the offer and uptake of prenatal screening and diagnosis in the UK: a systematic review. Public Health 2004, 118:177-218.
19. Van den Berg M., Timmermans D.R., Ten Kate L.P., van Vugt J.M., van der Wal G. Are pregnant women making informed choices about prenatal screening?. Genet Med 2005, 7:332-338.
20. Dahl K., Kesmodel U., Hvidman L., Olesen F. Informed consent: attitudes, knowledge and information concerning prenatal examinations. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2006, 85:1414-1419.
21. Hall A., Bostanci A., Wright C.F. Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis using cell-free fetal DNA technology: applications and implications. Public Health Genomics 2010, 13:246-255.