Development and validation of a measure of informed choice for women undergoing non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy

57Citations
Citations of this article
99Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) using cell-free DNA for aneuploidy is a highly accurate screening test; however, concerns exist around the potential for routinisation of testing. The multidimensional measure of informed choice (MMIC) is a quantitative instrument developed to assess informed choice for Down syndrome screening (DSS). We have validated a modified MMIC for NIPT and measured informed choice among women offered NIPT in a public health service. The measure was distributed to women recruited across eight maternity units in the United Kingdom who had accepted DSS. Construct validity was assessed by simultaneously conducting qualitative interviews. Five hundred and eighty-five questionnaires were completed and 45 interviews conducted after blood-draw (or equivalent for those that declined NIPT). The measure demonstrated good internal consistency and internal validity. Results indicate the vast majority of women (89%) made an informed choice; 95% were judged to have good knowledge, 88% had a positive attitude and 92% had deliberated. Of the 11% judged to have made an uninformed choice, 55% had not deliberated, 41% had insufficient knowledge, and 19% had a negative attitude. Ethnicity (OR=2.78, P=0.003) and accepting NIPT (OR=16.05, P=0.021) were found to be significant predictors of informed choice. The high rate of informed choice is likely to reflect the importance placed on the provision of pre-test counselling in this study. It will be vital to ensure that this is maintained once NIPT is offered in routine clinical practice.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Lewis, C., Hill, M., Skirton, H., & Chitty, L. S. (2016). Development and validation of a measure of informed choice for women undergoing non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy. European Journal of Human Genetics, 24(6), 809–816. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2015.207

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