A qualitative study on the perspectives of mothers who had been diagnosed with primary carnitine deficiency through newborn screening of their child.

BACKGROUND: Primary carnitine deficiency is an inborn error of metabolism, which can lead to life-threating complications early in life. Low carnitine levels can be detected by newborn bloodspot screening (NBS). However, NBS can also identify, mostly asymptomatic, mothers with primary carnitine deficiency. To identify mothers' needs and areas for improving screening practice, this study explored the experiences with, and opinions on primary carnitine deficiency screening in NBS among women diagnosed through NBS of their newborn. METHODS: Twelve Dutch women were interviewed, 3-11 years after diagnosis. Data were analysed using a thematic approach. RESULTS: Four main themes were derived: 1) psychological impact of primary carnitine deficiency diagnosis, 2) becoming a patient and "patient-in-waiting", 3) information issues and care provision, and 4) primary carnitine deficiency as part of the NBS panel. Mothers shared that they did not experience major psychological distress of the diagnosis. They did experience (recall) various emotions following the initial abnormal NBS result, including fear and anxiety as well as relief, and emotions regarding their own diagnosis, including uncertainty about health risks and treatment effectiveness. Some felt a patient-in-waiting. Many participants experienced a lack of information, especially shortly after receiving the abnormal NBS result. All shared the belief that screening for primary carnitine deficiency in NBS is beneficial for the newborn, and, given the information they received, also considered the knowledge beneficial for their own health. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological burden following diagnosis was experienced by women as limited, although the experienced lack of information amplified feelings of uncertainty and anxiety. Most mothers believed that benefits of knowing about primary carnitine deficiency outweighed the disadvantages. Mothers' perspectives should be incorporated in policy-making about primary carnitine deficiency in NBS.

Parents' views on accepting, declining, and expanding newborn bloodspot screening.

INTRODUCTION: The goal of newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) is the early detection of treatable disorders in newborns to offer early intervention. Worldwide, the number of conditions screened for is expanding, which might affect public acceptance. In the Netherlands, participation is high (>99%), but little is known about how parents perceive NBS. This study assessed parents' views on accepting, declining and expanding NBS. METHODS: A total of 804 of 6051 (13%) invited parents who participated in NBS in the Netherlands during the last two weeks of December 2019, and 48 of 1162 (4%) invited parents who declined participation in NBS in 2019 and 2020, completed a questionnaire. RESULTS: The most important reason for parents to participate in NBS was to prevent health complaints, whereas the most important reason to decline NBS was parents' viewpoint on life and the belief that the heel prick would be painful for the child. Compared to NBS participants, respondents who declined NBS were more actively religious, considered alternative medicine or lifestyle more important, were less inclined to vaccinate their child for infectious diseases, and reported more doubt about NBS participation (all differences p < .001). Informed choice was lower among respondents who declined NBS (44%) compared to participants in NBS (83%, p < .001), mostly due to insufficient knowledge. Of the NBS participants, 95% were positive about NBS expansion. Most NBS participants agreed to include conditions that could unintentionally reveal a diagnosis in the mother instead of the child (86%) or a condition that may not cause symptoms until later in the child's life (84%). CONCLUSION: Most participants made an informed decision to participate in NBS and are positive about screening for more conditions. Insights into parents' views on (non-)participation and expansion of NBS can help to ensure that NBS suits the population needs while safeguarding ethical principles for screening.

Routinization of prenatal screening with the non-invasive prenatal test: pregnant women's perspectives.

Due to the favorable test characteristics of the non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) in the screening of fetal aneuploidy, there has been a strong and growing demand for implementation. In the Netherlands, NIPT is offered within a governmentally supported screening program as a first-tier screening test for all pregnant women (TRIDENT-2 study). However, concerns have been raised that the test's favorable characteristics might lead to uncritical use, also referred to as routinization. This study addresses women's perspectives on prenatal screening with NIPT by evaluating three aspects related to routinization: informed choice, freedom to choose and (personal and societal) perspectives on Down syndrome. Nationwide, a questionnaire was completed by 751 pregnant women after receiving counseling for prenatal screening. Of the respondents, the majority (75.5%) made an informed choice for prenatal screening as measured by the multidimensional measure of informed choice (MMIC). Education level and religious affiliation were significant predictors of informed choice. The main reason to accept screening was "seeking reassurance" (25.5%), and the main reason to decline was "every child is welcome" (30.6%). The majority of respondents (87.7%) did not perceive societal pressure to test. Differences between test-acceptors and test-decliners in personal and societal perspectives on Down syndrome were found. Our study revealed high rates of informed decision-making and perceived freedom to choose regarding fetal aneuploidy screening, suggesting that there is little reason for concern about routinization of NIPT based on the perspectives of Dutch pregnant women. Our findings highlight the importance of responsible implementation of NIPT within a national screening program.

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): societal pressure or freedom of choice? A vignette study of Dutch citizens' attitudes.

The introduction of the accurate and procedurally easy non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) raises ethical concerns that public attitudes towards prenatal screening may change, leading to societal pressure to participate in aneuploidy screening. This study examined Dutch citizens' attitudes towards a pregnant woman's decision to (1) decline NIPT in the context of two different funding policies and (2) to terminate or continue a pregnancy affected by different disorders. The attitudes of 1096 respondents were assessed with the contrastive vignette method, using two pairs of vignettes about declining NIPT and termination of pregnancy. Most respondents either agreed with a woman's decision to decline NIPT or were neutral about it, stating that this decision should be made independently by women, and does not warrant judgement by others. Interestingly, funding policies did influence respondents' attitudes: significantly more respondents disagreed with declining NIPT when it was fully reimbursed. Respondents had similar attitudes to the vignettes on termination and continuation of pregnancy in case of Down's syndrome. In case of Edwards' or Patau's syndrome, however, significantly more respondents disagreed with continuation, citing the severity of the disorder and the child's best interests. This study demonstrates broad acknowledgement of women's freedom of choice in Dutch society; a finding that may help to rebut existing concerns about societal pressure for pregnant women to participate in prenatal screening. As the reimbursement policy and the scope of NIPT may influence people's attitudes and elicit moral judgements, however, maintaining freedom of choice warrants sustained efforts by health professionals and policy makers.

Rethinking counselling in prenatal screening: An ethical analysis of informed consent in the context of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT).

Informed consent is a key condition for prenatal screening programmes to reach their aim of promoting reproductive autonomy. Reaching this aim is currently being challenged with the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in first-trimester prenatal screening programmes: amongst others its procedural ease-it only requires a blood draw and reaches high levels of reliability-might hinder women's understanding that they should make a personal, informed decision about screening. We offer arguments for a renewed recognition and use of informed consent compared to informed choice, and for a focus on value-consistent choices and personalized informational preferences. We argue for a three-step counselling model in which three decision moments are distinguished and differently addressed: (1) professionals explore women's values concerning whether and why they wish to know whether their baby has a genetic disorder; (2) women receive layered medical-technical information and are asked to make a decision about screening; (3) during post-test counselling, women are supported in decision-making about the continuation or termination of their pregnancy. This model might also be applicable in other fields of genetic (pre-test) counselling, where techniques for expanding genome analysis and burdensome test-outcomes challenge counselling of patients.

Why NIPT should be publicly funded.

Asking pregnant women to (co)pay for non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) out of pocket leads to unequal access across socioeconomic strata. To avoid these social justice issues, first-trimester prenatal screening should be publicly funded in countries such as the Netherlands, with universal coverage healthcare systems that offer all other antenatal care services and screening programmes free of charge. In this reply, we offer three additional reasons for public funding of NIPT. First, NIPT may not primarily have medical utility for women and children, but rather offers relevant information and reproductive options, and thus serves important autonomy interests of women. Second, public funding of NIPT can be justified because it results in a reduction of collectively borne costs associated with care and support for children with chromosomal abnormalities. It is important to note that this is not an argument for individual women to take part in screening or to terminate an affected pregnancy. However, it is a legitimate argument in policy making regarding funding arrangements for screening programmes. Finally, public funding would help to amend current misunderstandings among pregnant women (eg, that they are not at risk), and thus to support informed consent for first-trimester prenatal screening.

Should pregnant women be charged for non-invasive prenatal screening? Implications for reproductive autonomy and equal access.

The introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in healthcare systems around the world offers an opportunity to reconsider funding policies for prenatal screening. In some countries with universal access healthcare systems, pregnant women and their partners are asked to (co)pay for NIPT. In this paper, we discuss two important rationales for charging women for NIPT: (1) to prevent increased uptake of NIPT and (2) to promote informed choice. First, given the aim of prenatal screening (reproductive autonomy), high or low uptake rates are not intrinsically desirable or undesirable. Using funding policies to negatively affect uptake, however, is at odds with the aim of screening. Furthermore, copayment disproportionally affects those of lower socioeconomic status, which conflicts with justice requirements and impedes equal access to prenatal screening. Second, we argue that although payment models may influence pregnant women's choice behaviours and perceptions of the relevance of NIPT, the copayment requirement does not necessarily lead to better-informed choices. On the contrary, external (ie, financial) influences on women's personal choices for or against prenatal screening should ideally be avoided. To improve informed decision-making, healthcare systems should instead invest in adequate non-directive, value-focused pretest counselling. This paper concludes that requiring (substantial) copayments for NIPT in universal access healthcare systems fails to promote reproductive autonomy and is unfair.

Implementing non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in the Netherlands: An interview study exploring opinions about and experiences with societal pressure, reimbursement, and an expanding scope.

The noninvasive prenatal test (NIPT) as the first trimester prenatal screening (FTS) for trisomies 21, 18, and 13 is offered to all pregnant women in the Netherlands. NIPT using genome sequencing allows for an expansion of the scope of FTS and the introduction of NIPT gives rise to ethical and societal concerns about deliberated decision-making, pressure to engage in screening, and possible lack of equal access due to the financial contribution (€175) to NIPT. We explored the opinions and experiences of pregnant women, who were offered FTS, about these concerns, and the possibility of a broadened scope. Nineteen pregnant women representing a diversity of backgrounds were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide. Eight women did not opt for prenatal screening while 11 did (NIPT = 4, combined test = 7). Women experienced a free choice to accept or decline prenatal screening, despite sometimes receiving advice from others. Prior to pretest counseling, some women had already deliberated about what an abnormal test result would mean to them. Others accepted or declined FTS without deliberation. The current Dutch policy of requiring a co-payment was acceptable to some, who believed that it functioned as a threshold to think carefully about FTS. Others were concerned that a financial threshold would lead to unequal access to screening. Finally, pregnant women found it difficult to formulate opinions on the scope of FTS, because of lack of knowledge. Life expectancy, severity, and treatability were considered important criteria for the inclusion of a condition in NIPT.

Ethics of routine: a critical analysis of the concept of 'routinisation' in prenatal screening.

In the debate surrounding the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in prenatal screening programmes, the concept of routinisation is often used to refer to concerns and potential negative consequences of the test. A literature analysis shows that routinisation has many different meanings, which can be distinguished in three major versions of the concept. Each of these versions comprises several inter-related fears and concerns regarding prenatal screening and particularly regarding NIPT in three areas: (1) informed choice, (2) freedom to choose and (3) consequences for people with a disability. Three of the strongest arguments raised under the flag of routinisation are assessed for their validity: the threat that NIPT poses to informed choice, the potential increase in uptake of first-trimester prenatal screening and its consequences for social pressure to participate in screening or terminate affected pregnancies, and the negative consequences for disabled people. These routinisation arguments lack empirical or normative ground. However, the results of this analysis do not imply that no attention should be paid to possible problems surrounding the introduction of NIPT. At least two problems remain and should be addressed: there should be an ongoing debate about the requirements of informed choice, particularly related to an expanded scope of prenatal screening. Also, reproductive autonomy can only be achieved when expecting parents' options are variegated, real and valuable, so that they can continue to choose whether or not to screen or to terminate a pregnancy.

What Do Parents of Children with Down Syndrome Think about Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT)?

This study explores the attitudes of parents of children with Down syndrome towards non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and widening the scope of prenatal screening. Three focus groups (n = 16) and eleven individual interviews with Dutch parents (and two relatives) of children with Down syndrome were conducted. Safety, accuracy and earlier testing were seen as the advantages of NIPT. Some participants were critical about the practice of screening for Down syndrome, but acknowledged that NIPT enables people to know whether the fetus is affected and to prepare without risking miscarriage. Many feared uncritical use of NIPT and more abortions for Down syndrome. Concerns included the consequences for the acceptance of and facilities for children with Down syndrome, resulting in more people deciding to screen. Participants stressed the importance of good counseling and balanced, accurate information about Down syndrome. Testing for more disorders might divert the focus away from Down syndrome, but participants worried about "where to draw the line". They also feared a loss of diversity in society. Findings show that, while parents acknowledge that NIPT offers a better and safer option to know whether the fetus is affected, they also have concerns about NIPT's impact on the acceptance and care of children with Down syndrome.