Reducing decisional conflict in decisions about prenatal genetic testing: the impact of a dyadic intervention at the start of prenatal care.

OBJECTIVES: Decisional conflict and regret about prenatal genetic screening and diagnostic tests may have important consequences in the current pregnancy and for future reproductive decisions. Identifying mechanisms that reduce conflict associated with the decision to use or decline these options is necessary for optimal patient counseling. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial of a shared decision-making tool (NEST) at the beginning of prenatal care. Enrolled patients completed follow-up surveys at the time of testing (QTT) and in the second-third trimester (QFF), including the Decision Conflict Scale (DCS). Total DCS scores were analyzed using a multivariate linear mixed-effect model. RESULTS: Of the total number of participants (n=502) enrolled, 449 completed the QTT and QFF surveys. The mean age of participants was 31.6±3.8, with most parous at the time of study participation (n=321; 71.7 %). Both the NEST (the intervention) and control groups had lower median total DCS scores at QFF (NEST 13.3 [1.7, 25.0] vs. control 16.7 [1.7, 25.0]; p=0.24) compared to QTT (NEST 20.8 [5.0, 25.0] vs. control 18.3 [3.3, 26.7]; p=0.89). Participants exposed to NEST had lower decisional conflict at QFF compared to control (ß -3.889; [CI -7.341, -0.437]; p=0.027). CONCLUSIONS: Using a shared decision-making tool at the start of prenatal care decreased decisional conflict regarding prenatal genetic testing. Such interventions have the potential to provide an important form of decision-making support for patients facing the unique type of complex and preference-based choices about the use of prenatal genetic tests.

Impact of Telehealth on the Delivery of Prenatal Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Mixed Methods Study of the Barriers and Opportunities to Improve Health Care Communication in Discussions About Pregnancy and Prenatal Genetic Testing.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic brought significant changes in health care, specifically the accelerated use of telehealth. Given the unique aspects of prenatal care, it is important to understand the impact of telehealth on health care communication and quality, and patient satisfaction. This mixed methods study examined the challenges associated with the rapid and broad implementation of telehealth for prenatal care delivery during the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we examined patients' perspectives, preferences, and experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the aim of supporting the development of successful models to serve the needs of pregnant patients, obstetric providers, and health care systems during this time. METHODS: Pregnant patients who received outpatient prenatal care in Cleveland, Ohio participated in in-depth interviews and completed the Coronavirus Perinatal Experiences-Impact Survey (COPE-IS) between January and December 2021. Transcripts were coded using NVivo 12, and qualitative analysis was used, an approach consistent with the grounded theory. Quantitative data were summarized and integrated during analysis. RESULTS: Thematic saturation was achieved with 60 interviews. We learned that 58% (35/60) of women had telehealth experience prior to their current pregnancy. However, only 8% (5/60) of women had used both in-person and virtual visits during this pregnancy, while the majority (54/60, 90%) of women participated in only in-person visits. Among 59 women who responded to the COPE-IS, 59 (100%) felt very well supported by their provider, 31 (53%) were moderately to highly concerned about their child's health, and 17 (29%) reported that the single greatest stress of COVID-19 was its impact on their child. Lead themes focused on establishing patient-provider relationships that supported shared decision-making, accessing the information needed for shared decision-making, and using technology effectively to foster discussions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Key findings indicated that participants felt in-person visits were more personal, established greater rapport, and built better trust in the patient-provider relationship as compared to telehealth visits. Further, participants felt they could achieve a greater dialogue and ask more questions regarding time-sensitive information, including prenatal genetic testing information, through an in-person visit. Finally, privacy concerns arose if prenatal genetic testing or general pregnancy conversations were to take place outside of the health care facility. CONCLUSIONS: While telehealth was recognized as an option to ensure timely access to prenatal care during the COVID-19 pandemic, it also came with multiple challenges for the patient-provider relationship. These findings highlighted the barriers and opportunities to achieve effective and patient-centered communication with the continued integration of telehealth in prenatal care delivery. It is important to address the unique needs of this population during the pandemic and as health care increasingly adopts a telehealth model.

The Impact of Outpatient Prenatal Care Visitor Restrictions on Pregnant Patients and Partners During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Introduction: During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, several health care facilities enacted visitor restrictions to help reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 among patients, front-line workers in health care systems, and communities. The impact and burden of policy updates on visitor restrictions put forth by the COVID-19 pandemic can be seen on patients and families, most often in the acute care setting and skilled nursing facilities. Yet, the effects of visitor restrictions in the prenatal care setting were unknown. We conducted a study to investigate the impact of these policies on pregnant patients who received outpatient prenatal care. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study to explore pregnant patients' experiences with prenatal health care delivery between May and July 2020. In-depth interviews were conducted with pregnant patients in the first and second trimester of pregnancy, who received their prenatal care at the onset of the pandemic in the United States. Results: Participants noted increased maternal concern, anxiety, and mental health concerns stemming from the lack of in-person partner support. They noted disappointment and lost experiences for the patient during pregnancy, seeking support from her partner during pregnancy, experiences felt to be critical for postpartum health and wellbeing. There was also concern about the negative impact of restrictions on prenatal care quality and experience. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the impact of visitor restrictions on patients' prenatal care experience and perception of health care quality during the COVID-19 pandemic. Future public health strategies should be individualized to different patient populations addressing knowledge, health literacy, and socioeconomic status, and developed in conjunction with pregnant patients as key stakeholders in the delivery of prenatal health care.

The Successes and Challenges of Implementing Telehealth for Diverse Patient Populations Requiring Prenatal Care During COVID-19: Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Although telehealth appears to have been accepted among some obstetric populations before the COVID-19 pandemic, patients' receptivity and experience with the rapid conversion of this mode of health care delivery are unknown. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we examine patients' prenatal care needs, preferences, and experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the aim of supporting the development of successful models to serve the needs of pregnant patients, obstetric providers, and health care systems during this time. METHODS: This study involved qualitative methods to explore pregnant patients' experiences with prenatal health care delivery at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted in-depth interviews with pregnant patients in the first and second trimester of pregnancy who received prenatal care in Cleveland, Ohio, from May to July 2020. An interview guide was used to probe experiences with health care delivery as it rapidly evolved at the onset of the pandemic. RESULTS: Although advantages of telehealth were noted, there were several concerns noted with the broad implementation of telehealth for prenatal care during the pandemic. This included concerns about monitoring the pregnancy at home; the need for additional reassurance for the pregnancy, given the uncertainties presented by the pandemic; and the ability to have effective patient-provider discussions via a telehealth visit. The need to tailor telehealth to prenatal health care delivery was noted. CONCLUSIONS: Although previous studies have demonstrated that telehealth is a flexible and convenient alternative for some prenatal appointments, our study suggests that there may be specific needs and concerns among the diverse patient groups using this modality during the pandemic. More research is needed to understand patients' experiences with telehealth during the pandemic and develop approaches that are responsive to the needs and preferences of patients.

Decision-making for prenatal genetic screening: how will pregnant women navigate a growing number of aneuploidy and carrier screening options?

BACKGROUND: Prenatal genetic screens, including carrier screening (CS) and aneuploidy screening (AS), comprise an important component of reproductive healthcare delivery. Clinical practice guidelines emphasize the importance of informed decision-making and patient's preferences regarding the use of these screens. Yet, it is unclear how to achieve this ideal as prenatal genetic screening options rapidly become more complex and increasingly available to patients. With increased complexity and availability of reproductive testing options, decision-support strategies are critical to prepare patients to consider AS and/or CS. METHODS: A self-administered survey evaluated knowledge and decision-making preferences for expanded carrier (CS) and aneuploidy (AS) prenatal screening. The survey was administered to participants before their first prenatal visit to assess baseline decision-making needs and preference at the initiation of prenatal care. Analysis was approached as a descriptive process. RESULTS: Participants had similar familiarity with the concepts associated with AS compared to CS; mean knowledge scores for CS was 0.59 [possible range 0.00 to 1.00] and 0.55 for AS. Participants reported preferences to learn about a range of conditions, including those with severe or mild impact, childhood-onset, and adult-onset. Decision-making preference with respect to learning about the associated disease phenotypes for the contained on AS and CS panel shifted with the complexity of the panel, with a greater preference to learn about conditions post-test compared pre-test education as panels increased from 5 to 100 conditions. CONCLUSION: Patients' baseline knowledge of prenatal genetic screens coupled with evolving decision-making preferences presents challenges for the delivery of prenatal genetic screens. This calls for the development and implementation of innovative approaches to support pregnant patients' decision-making commensurate with advances in prenatal genomics.

The impact of the emergence of COVID-19 on women's prenatal genetic testing decisions.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a study to examine the impact of COVID on patients' access and utilization of prenatal genetic screens and diagnostic tests at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. METHODS: We conducted telephone interviews with 40 patients to examine how the pandemic affected prenatal genetic screening and diagnostic testing decisions during the initial months of the pandemic in the United States. An interview guide queried experiences with the ability to access information about prenatal genetic testing options and to utilize the tests when desired. Audio recordings were transcribed and coded using NVivo 12. Analysis was conducted using Grounded Theory. RESULTS: The pandemic did not alter most participants' decisions to undergo prenatal genetic testing. Yet, it did impact how participants viewed the risks and benefits of testing and timing of testing. There was heightened anxiety among those who underwent testing, stemming from the risk of viral exposure and the fear of being alone if pregnancy loss or fetal abnormality was identified at the time of an ultrasound-based procedure. CONCLUSION: The pandemic may impact patients' access and utilization of prenatal genetic tests. More research is needed to determine how best to meet pregnant patients' decision-making needs during this time.

Making the most of the first prenatal visit: The challenge of expanding prenatal genetic testing options and limited clinical encounter time.

OBJECTIVE: Advances in prenatal genetics place additional challenges as patients must receive information about a growing array of screening and testing options. This raises concerns about how to achieve a shared decision-making process that prepares patients to make an informed decision about their choices about prenatal genetic screening and testing options, calling for a reconsideration of how healthcare providers approach the first prenatal visit. METHODS: We conducted interviews with 40 pregnant women to identify components of decision-making regarding prenatal genetic screens and tests at this visit. Analysis was approached using grounded theory. RESULTS: Participants brought distinct notions of risk to the visit, including skewed perceptions of baseline risk for a fetal genetic condition and the implications of screening and testing. Participants were very concerned about financial considerations associated with these options, ranking out-of-pocket costs on par with medical considerations. Participants noted diverging priorities at the first visit from those of their healthcare provider, leading to barriers to shared decision-making regarding screening and testing during this visit. CONCLUSION: Research is needed to determine how to restructure the initiation of prenatal care in a way that best positions patients to make informed decisions about prenatal genetic screens and tests.

Balancing Needs and Autonomy: The Involvement of Pregnant Women's Partners in Decisions About cfDNA.

Cell-free fetal DNA (cfDNA) screening is used to identify the presence of fetal genetic variants early in pregnancy. Patients' informed decision-making is central to the success of this new screen in clinical practice. Although research has focused on pregnant women's decision-making, little is known about partners' role and preferences as a member of the decision-making dyad. Using a grounded theory approach, this study analyzed 23 in-depth interviews to examine partners' perspectives about cfDNA screening and preferences with respect to their role in the decision-making process. Participants wished to be actively involved in testing decisions. They articulated a distinct set of needs and preferences in the decision-making process. Such involvement was hindered by several biological and logistical barriers. This study demonstrates the need to develop mechanisms that foster informed decision-making for cfDNA screening and related new reproductive genetic technologies that focus on not just the pregnant woman but also the decision-making dyad that includes her partner as well.

Genetic Counselors' Perspectives About Cell-Free DNA: Experiences, Challenges, and Expectations for Obstetricians.

The expansion of cell-free fetal DNA (cfDNA) screening for a larger and diverse set of genetic variants, in addition for use among the low-risk obstetric population, presents important clinical challenges for all healthcare providers involved in the delivery of prenatal care. It is unclear how to leverage the different members of the healthcare team to respond to these challenges. We conducted interviews with 25 prenatal genetic counselors to understand their experience with the continued expansion of cfDNA screening. Participants supported the use of cfDNA screening for the common autosomal aneuploidies, but noted some reservations for its use to identify fetal sex and microdeletions. Participants reported several barriers to ensuring that patients have the information and support to make informed decisions about using cfDNA to screen for these different conditions. This was seen as a dual-sided problem, and necessitated additional education interventions that addressed patients seeking cfDNA screening, and obstetricians who introduce the concepts of genetic risk and cfDNA to patients. In addition, participants noted that they have a professional responsibility to educate obstetricians about cfDNA so they can be prepared to be gatekeepers of counseling and education about this screening option for use among the general obstetric population.

Patient-Centered Obstetric Care in the Age of Cell-Free Fetal DNA Prenatal Screening.

PURPOSE: The clinical introduction of innovative prenatal genetic technologies challenges patients and providers to find new ways of fostering informed decision-making in a setting characterized by complexity and uncertainty. As prenatal genetic technology advances, important questions remain about how to structure patient-centered conversations that effectively prepare pregnant patients to make informed choices about the different genetic conditions for which this new form screening may be used. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted with 23 pregnant women to identify informational needs and decision-making preferences regarding emerging and anticipated applications of cell-free fetal DNA screening, the newest form of prenatal genetic screening. RESULTS: Participants were in favor of obtaining more genetic information about the fetus than provided by conventional screens but acknowledged the challenges inherent in navigating the unique complexities of the decision-making process. The provider-patient relationship was seen as an important resource to navigate the associated uncertainties at each stage of the screening process. Participants emphasized the need for initiatives to support a personalized, accurate, and unbiased discussion about prenatal genetic risk and assessment. CONCLUSION: Continued advances in prenatal genetic screening call for new approaches to structure patient-centered communication to facilitate increasingly complex decisions about fetal genetic risk and assessment.

Patient Decisions to Receive Secondary Pharmacogenomic Findings and Development of a Multidisciplinary Practice Model to Integrate Results Into Patient Care.

Whole exome sequencing (WES) has the potential of identifying secondary findings that are predictive of poor pharmacotherapy outcomes. The purpose of this study was to investigate patients' wishes regarding the reporting of secondary pharmacogenomic findings. WES results (n = 106 patients) were retrospectively reviewed to determine the number of patients electing to receive secondary pharmacogenomic results. Phenotypes were assigned based on Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines. The percent of patients with a predicted phenotype associated with a gene-based CPIC dosing recommendation was determined. Ninety-nine patients (93.4%) elected to receive secondary pharmacogenomic findings. For each gene-drug pair analyzed, the number of patients with an actionable phenotype ranged from two (2%) to 43 patients (43.4%). Combining all gene-drug pairs, 84 unique patients (84.8%) had an actionable phenotype. A prospective multidisciplinary practice model was developed for integrating secondary pharmacogenomic findings into clinical practice. Our model highlights a unique collaboration between physician-geneticists, pharmacists, and genetic counselors.

Implications of Ohio's 20-Week Abortion Ban on Prenatal Patients and the Assessment of Fetal Anomalies.

Ohio's governor recently signed into law Senate Bill 127, a bill that makes it a fourth-degree felony for a health care provider to perform an abortion "when the probable post-fertilization age of the unborn child is 20 weeks or greater," joining a series of other states that have enacted such legislation or are moving toward similar legislation. Twenty-week bans have salient implications for women's health, quality of care, and access to services, particularly in the context of the delivery of prenatal care. Because of the timeline of the initiation of prenatal care and assessments of fetal genetic and anatomic anomalies, patients may increasingly find themselves at or near the 20-week postfertilization gestational threshold when they have insufficient information to decide about continuing or ending the pregnancy. This law thus leaves women and families with limited time to obtain a genetic or anatomic diagnosis, restricts access to abortion care at a crucial decision-making time in the pregnancy, and has significant implications for the patient-physician relationship. This law also has ramifications for women and health care providers outside of Ohio, because patients who have made the choice to end a pregnancy will have to cross state lines for abortion care. It is important for obstetric providers to be aware of the ramifications of 20-week bans and take steps to ensure that pregnant women receive high-quality care despite the burdens imposed on the health care decision-making process.

The use of noninvasive prenatal testing in obstetric care: educational resources, practice patterns, and barriers reported by a national sample of clinicians.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify how physicians develop their knowledge base and practice patterns regarding noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT). METHODS: A survey was used to assess physicians' informational sources and practice patterns regarding NIPT. RESULTS: While most of the 258 participants acquire knowledge about NIPT from the medical literature or didactic educational programming, 74 (28.7%) cite commercial laboratories as an initial source and 124 (47.8%) as a way to keep current with changes in NIPT. About one-third (n = 94, 36.4%) seek information about ethical issues related to NIPT. Half of the OB/GYN respondents (n = 136, 52.7%) provide pretest counseling; fewer refer to a genetic counselor or maternal fetal medicine specialist (MFM) (n = 94, 34.6%, n = 29, 11.2%, respectively). Pretest counseling content and the comfort with which participants discuss topics pertinent to patients' utilization of NIPT varied between OB/GYNs and MFMs. CONCLUSIONS: Advances in cff DNA technology emphasize the need for effective strategies for physicians to develop competency and practice patterns regarding NIPT. Study findings speak to the need for effective educational resources for obstetric providers, not just early adopters of NIPT but also for primary OB/GYNs as they serve in the role of the first point of contact for women considering their prenatal testing options. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Online direct-to-consumer messages about non-invasive prenatal genetic testing.

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has been integrated into clinical care at a time when patients and healthcare providers increasingly utilize the internet to access health information. This study evaluated online direct-to-consumer information about NIPT produced by commercial laboratories accessible to both patients and healthcare providers. A coding checklist captured areas to describe content and assess concordance with clinical guidelines. We found that the information presented about NIPT is highly variable, both within a single website and broadly across all websites. Variability was noted in how NIPT is characterized, including test characteristics and indications. All laboratories offer NIPT to test for common sex chromosome aneuploidies, although there is a lack of consistency regarding the conditions offered and information provided about each. Although indicated for a subset of women at increased risk of aneuploidy, some laboratories describe the use of NIPT for all pregnant women. A subset of laboratories offers screening for microdeletions, although clinical practice guidelines do not yet recommend for general use for this indication. None of the online materials addressed the ethical issues associated with NIPT. This study highlights the need for clear, consistent, and evidence-based materials to educate patients and healthcare providers about the current and emerging applications of NIPT.