Present to future: What the reasons for declining first-trimester combined testing tell us about accepting or declining cell-free DNA testing

Prenatal Diagnosis

Volumn 36, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 587-590

  Crombag, Neeltje M T H ^a   van Schendel, Rachel V ^b   Schielen, Peter C J I ^c   Bensing, Jozien M ^d,e   Henneman, Lidewij ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^b VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT   (Netherlands)

^d NETHERLANDS INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH   (Netherlands)

^e UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CELL FREE DNA TESTING; DNA DETERMINATION; DOWN SYNDROME; FIRST TRIMESTER COMBINED TESTING; HUMAN; LETTER; PREGNANCY TERMINATION; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; TREATMENT REFUSAL; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BLOOD; CHROMOSOME ABERRATION; CHROMOSOME DISORDERS; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; FIRST TRIMESTER PREGNANCY; GENETICS; INFORMATION PROCESSING; NETHERLANDS; PREGNANCY; PSYCHOLOGY; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; UTILIZATION; YOUNG ADULT;

DNA;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CHROMOSOME ABERRATIONS; CHROMOSOME DISORDERS; DECISION MAKING; DNA; FEMALE; FOCUS GROUPS; HUMANS; NETHERLANDS; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY TRIMESTER, FIRST; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84968624560     PISSN: 01973851     EISSN: 10970223     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pd.4824     Document Type: Letter

References (10)

1. Hill M, Johnson JA, Langlois S, et al. Preferences for prenatal tests for Down syndrome: an international comparison of the views of pregnant women and health professionals. Eur J Hum Genet 2015;1-8.
2. vanSchendel RV, Dondorp WJ, Timmermans DR, et al. NIPT-based screening for Down syndrome and beyond: what do pregnant women think? Prenat Diagn 2015;35(6):598-604.
3. vanSchendel RV, Kleinveld JH, Dondorp WJ, et al. Attitudes of pregnant women and male partners towards non-invasive prenatal testing and widening the scope of prenatal screening. Eur J Hum Genet 2014;22(12):1345-50.
4. Verweij EJ, Oepkes D, deBoer MA. Changing attitudes towards termination of pregnancy for trisomy 21 with non-invasive prenatal trisomy testing: a population-based study in Dutch pregnant women. Prenat Diagn 2013;33(4):397-9.
5. Lewis C, Hill M, Silcock C, et al. Non-invasive prenatal testing for trisomy 21: a cross-sectional survey of service users' views and likely uptake. BJOG 2014;121(5):582-94.
6. Dondorp W, deWert G, Bombard Y, et al. Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy and beyond: challenges of responsible innovation in prenatal screening. Eur J Hum Genet 2015;23(11):1592.
7. van denBerg M, Timmermans DR, Kleinveld JH, et al. Accepting or declining the offer of prenatal screening for congenital defects: test uptake and women's reasons. Prenat Diagn 2005;25(1):84-90.
8. Bakker M, Birnie E, Pajkrt E, et al. Low uptake of the combined test in The Netherlands-which factors contribute? Prenat Diagn 2012;32(13):1305-12.
9. Crombag NM, Boeije H, Iedema-Kuiper R, et al. Reasons for accepting or declining Down syndrome screening in Dutch prospective mothers with reference to national policy and healthcare system characteristics: a qualitative study. Provisionally accepted for publication BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth March 2016.
10. Sachs A, Blanchard L, Buchanan A, et al. Recommended pre-test counseling points for non-invasive prenatal testing using cell-free DNA: a 2015 perspective. Prenat Diagn 2015;35(10):968-71.