Search

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

• With an own financial contribution, there is no equal access to fetal aneuploidy screening. • To overcome this inequality, the own contribution of the NIPT should be abandoned. • Since the majority of the parents makes an informed choice, the fear of routinization is redundant. First trimester non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) provides pregnant women with a reliable, non-invasive method to screen for fetal aneuploidies. In the Netherlands, there is a nationwide prenatal screening program in which pregnant women and their partners are counseled about their options around 10 weeks of pregnancy. The first trimester and second trimester scan are fully reimbursed but the NIPT has an own financial contribution of €175 per participant, irrespective of type of insurance. The arguments for this own contribution are fear of uncritical use of NIPT or routinization. NIPT has a relatively stable uptake of 51%, against over 95% for second trimester anomaly scan. We aimed to explore the effect of this financial contribution on the decision to opt out of NIPT. We performed a survey among 350 pregnant women undergoing a second trimester anomaly scan in our center, Amsterdam UMC, between January 2021 and April 2022. All pregnant women who declined NIPT in the first trimester, were asked to participate and answered 11–13 questions about the decision-making process, the reasons to opt out and the financial contribution. Information about NIPT was desired in 92% of women and 96% felt sufficiently informed. Most women took the decision not to perform NIPT with their partner and did not experience difficulties in taking this decision. The most important reason to decline NIPT was: "Every child is welcome" (69%). "The test was too expensive" was answered in 12% and was significantly correlated with lower maternal age. Additionally, one in five women (19%) said they would have done NIPT if it had been for free, which was significantly higher in younger women. The own financial contribution plays a role in the decision-making to decline NIPT and partly explains the low uptake in the Netherlands. This suggests that there is no equal access to fetal aneuploidy screening. To overcome this inequality, this own contribution should be abandoned. We speculate that this will have a positive effect on the uptake, which will increase to at least 70% and potentially 94%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: There have been substantial medical developments in prenatal anomaly and aneuploidy screening. However, the quality of counseling about these tests tends to lag behind. Additional quality requirements were therefore implemented in the Netherlands in 2017 to optimize this counseling. We compared clients' counseling preferences and experiences before and after implementation of these requirements.Methods: We used the validated 57-item QUOTEprenatal questionnaire, to measure clients' counseling preferences and experiences before and after counseling in 20 obstetric organizations throughout the Netherlands. Clients' preferences and experiences were compared between pregnant women and partners, nulliparous versus multiparous clients and between results of a Dutch survey in 2011 and the current one.Results: Sixty-five counselors and 649 clients (353 pregnant women and 296 partners) participated in this study. Compared to 2011, slightly more clients considered the three QUOTEprenatal components of counseling (client-counselor relationship, health education, and decision-making support) to be either important or very important, especially decision-making support. More clients than in 2011 perceived their needs as being well addressed, with the lowest percentages for decision-making support.Conclusion: Quality requirements seem to benefit the quality of counseling, as perceived by clients.Practical Implications: Counselors should consider tailoring their decision-making support more to clients' needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Netherlands launched a nationwide implementation study on non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as a first-tier test offered to all pregnant women. This started on April 1, 2017 as the TRIDENT-2 study, licensed by the Dutch Ministry of Health. In the first year, NIPT was performed in 73,239 pregnancies (42% of all pregnancies), 7,239 (4%) chose first-trimester combined testing, and 54% did not participate. The number of trisomies 21 (239, 0.33%), 18 (49, 0.07%), and 13 (55, 0.08%) found in this study is comparable to earlier studies, but the Positive Predictive Values (PPV)—96% for trisomy 21, 98% for trisomy 18, and 53% for trisomy 13—were higher than expected. Findings other than trisomy 21, 18, or 13 were reported on request of the pregnant women; 78% of women chose to have these reported. The number of additional findings was 207 (0.36%); these included other trisomies (101, 0.18%, PPV 6%, many of the remaining 94% of cases are likely confined placental mosaics and possibly clinically significant), structural chromosomal aberrations (95, 0.16%, PPV 32%,) and complex abnormal profiles indicative of maternal malignancies (11, 0.02%, PPV 64%). The implementation of genome-wide NIPT is under debate because the benefits of detecting other fetal chromosomal aberrations must be balanced against the risks of discordant positives, parental anxiety, and a potential increase in (invasive) diagnostic procedures. Our first-year data, including clinical data and laboratory follow-up data, will fuel this debate. Furthermore, we describe how NIPT can successfully be embedded into a national screening program with a single chain for prenatal care including counseling, testing, and follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Fetal and neonatal alloimmune thrombocytopenia is a potentially life-threatening disease with excellent preventative treatment available for subsequent pregnancies. To prevent index cases, the effectiveness of a population-based screening program has been suggested repeatedly. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate women's attitude towards possible future human platelet antigen-screening in pregnancy.Material and Methods: We performed a cross-sectional questionnaire study among healthy pregnant women receiving prenatal care in one of seven participating midwifery practices. Attitude was assessed using a questionnaire based on the validated Multidimensional Measurement of Informed Choice model, containing questions assessing knowledge, attitude and intention to participate.Results: A total of 143 of the 220 women (65%) completed and returned the questionnaire. A positive attitude towards human platelet antigen-screening was expressed by 91% of participants, of which 94% was based on sufficient knowledge. Attitude was more likely to be negatively influenced by the opinion that screening can be frightening. Informed choices were made in 87% and occurred significantly less in women from non-European origin, 89% in European women vs. 60% in non-European women (p = 0.03).Conclusions: Pregnant women in the Netherlands expressed a positive attitude towards human platelet antigen-screening in pregnancy. We therefore expect a high rate of informed uptake when human platelet antigen-screening is implemented. In future counseling on human platelet antigen-screening, ethnicity and possible anxiety associated with a screening test need to be specifically addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Worldwide induction and cesarean delivery rates have increased rapidly, with consequences for subsequent pregnancies. The majority of intrapartum cesarean deliveries are performed for failure to progress, typically in nulliparous women at term. Current uterine registration techniques fail to identify inefficient contractions leading to first-stage labor arrest. An alternative technique, uterine electromyography has been shown to identify inefficient contractions leading to first-stage arrest of labor in nulliparous women with spontaneous onset of labor at term. The objective of this study was to determine whether this finding can be reproduced in induction of labor.Material and Methods: Uterine activity was measured in 141 nulliparous women with singleton term pregnancies and a fetus in cephalic position during induced labor. Electrical activity of the myometrium during contractions was characterized by its power density spectrum.Results: No significant differences were found in contraction characteristics between women with induced labor delivering vaginally with or without oxytocin and women with arrested labor with subsequent cesarean delivery.Conclusion: Uterine electromyography shows no correlation with progression of labor in induced labor, which is in contrast to spontaneous labor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and its potential to test for multiple disorders has received much attention. This study explores attitudes of women and men towards NIPT, and their views on widening the scope of prenatal testing in a country with a low uptake of prenatal screening (The Netherlands). Five focus groups with low-risk pregnant women (n=28), three focus groups with men (n=19) and 13 interviews with high- and low-risk pregnant women were conducted. Participants felt that current prenatal screening has great disadvantages such as uncertain results and risk of miscarriage from follow-up diagnostics. Characteristics of NIPT (accurate, safe and early testing) could therefore diminish these disadvantages of prenatal screening and help lower the barrier for participation. This suggests that NIPT might allow couples to decide about prenatal testing based mostly on their will to test or not, rather than largely based on fear of miscarriage risk or the uncertainty of results. The lower barrier for participation was also seen as a downside that could lead to uncritical use or pressure to test. Widening the scope of prenatal testing was seen as beneficial for severe disorders, although it was perceived difficult to determine where to draw the line. Participants argued that there should be a limit to the scope of NIPT, avoiding testing for minor abnormalities. The findings suggest that NIPT could enable more meaningful decision-making for prenatal screening. However, to ensure voluntary participation, especially when testing for multiple disorders, safeguards on the basis of informed decision-making will be of utmost importance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article cites a research study on the antenatal screening for HIV, hepatitis B and syphilis in pregnant women in the Netherlands. It examines the effectiveness of antenatal screening in preventing mother-to-child transmission. It is said that around 185,000 pregnant women were screened for HIV, HBV and syphilis each year.

In contrast to most Western countries, routine offer of prenatal screening is considered problematic in the Netherlands. The main argument against offering it to every pregnant woman is that women would be brought into a moral dilemma when deciding whether to use screening or not. This paper explores whether the active offer of a prenatal screening test indeed confronts women with a moral dilemma. A qualitative study was developed, based on a randomised controlled trial that aimed to assess the decision-making process of women when confronted with a test offer. A sample of 59 women was interviewed about the different factors balanced in decision-making. Participants felt themselves caught between a need for knowledge and their unwillingness to take on responsibility. Conflict was reported between wishes, preferences and ethical views regarding parenthood; however, women did not seem to be caught in a choice between two or more ethical principles. Participants balanced the interests of the family against that of the fetus in line with their values and their personal circumstances. Therefore, we conclude that they are not so much faced with an ethical dilemma as conflicting interests. We propose that caregivers should provide the opportunity for the woman to discuss her wishes and doubts to facilitate her decision. This approach would help women to assess the meaning of testing within their parental duties towards their unborn child and their current offspring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study is to determine the influence of withdrawal of reimbursement on the uptake of the first-trimester combined test. Until January 2007 the combined test was offered to all pregnant women in a designated geographical area as a pilot study before the introduction of the national screening program in the Netherlands, to test the logistic procedures. In January 2007 the insurance companies suddenly stopped paying for the combined test with respect to women aged ≤35 years by decision of the government. In 2006 the combined test was performed in 4616 women compared with 3459 who had the combined test in 2007, a reduction of 25% (95% CI 23.8-26.3%, p < 0.001). A decline was observed in the uptake of the combined test in women aged ≤35 years ( p < 0.001) as opposed to an increase in uptake in women aged ≥36 years ( p < 0.001). The financial impact on the uptake of the first-trimester combined test should not be underestimated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]