Pregnant people's views and knowledge on prenatal screening for fetal trisomy in the absence of a national screening program

0Citations
Citations of this article
22Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Multiple non-invasive prenatal tests (NIPT) are available to screen for risk of fetal trisomy, however, there is no national prenatal screening program in Republic of Ireland. This study aimed to analyze pregnant people's opinions on availability, cost, and knowledge of NIPT for fetal aneuploidy. An anonymous questionnaire on prenatal screening tests and termination of pregnancy was distributed to patients attending antenatal clinics at a tertiary hospital. Descriptive analyses and chi-squared tests were completed. Among respondents, 62% (200/321) understood the scope of prenatal screening tests, with 77% (251/326) and 76% (245/323) correctly interpreting low- and high-risk test results, respectively. Only 26% (83/319) of participants had heard of NIPT. Chi-square tests showed a higher proportion of these people were ≥40 years old (p-value, <0.001), had post-graduate education (p-value, <0.001), or attended private clinics (p-value <0.001). Over 91% (303/331) of participants said every pregnant person should be offered prenatal screening tests for aneuploidy and 88% (263/299) believed these should be free. While pregnant Irish individuals have reasonable understanding of screening test interpretation, most were unaware of screening options. Additionally, participants' views on availability and associated cost of tests show the need for a national prenatal screening program, including education on fetal aneuploidy. These findings have relevance for countries without screening policies and are pertinent for broader maternity services.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kelly, K., Leitao, S., Meaney, S., & O’Donoghue, K. (2024). Pregnant people’s views and knowledge on prenatal screening for fetal trisomy in the absence of a national screening program. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 33(4), 805–814. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgc4.1769

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free