Search

In the Netherlands, genome-wide non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is offered to all pregnant women as part of the nationwide TRIDENT-2 study. Findings other than trisomy 21, 18, or 13, which are called "additional findings", are reported only on request of the pregnant woman. This study examined: (1) women's pre-test perceptions and reasons to opt for additional findings and (2) women's experiences with- and the psychological impact of being informed about an additional finding. A questionnaire, consisting of the anxiety measure State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), distress measure Impact of Event Scale (IES) and questions developed specifically for this study, was retrospectively administered to 402 women who received an additional finding. A total of 227 (56.5%) women completed the questionnaire. Most (60.2%) chose to know additional findings because they wanted as much information as possible about the health of their fetus. Almost all (92%) stated that receiving the additional finding was unexpected, a shock, and/or they were in disbelief, for 85% it caused a lot of worry. Post-test, high anxiety (STAI) levels were reported in 15.5% of women, and 7.5% reported severe distress (IES). Women who gave birth to an affected child (n = 10) experienced most psychological impact (STAI and IES). Eighty-six percent of women with a fetal aberration would opt for additional findings again, compared to 49.2% of women whose result was confined to the placenta. Pre-test counseling should focus on explaining the different results NIPT can generate. Post-test counseling should focus on guiding pregnant women through this uncertain and anxious time., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Human Genetics.)

In the TRIDENT-2 study, all pregnant women in the Netherlands are offered genome-wide non-invasive prenatal testing (GW-NIPT) with a choice of receiving either full screening or screening solely for common trisomies. Previous data showed that GW-NIPT can reliably detect common trisomies in the general obstetric population and that this test can also detect other chromosomal abnormalities (additional findings). However, evidence regarding the clinical impact of screening for additional findings is lacking. Therefore, we present follow-up results of the TRIDENT-2 study to determine this clinical impact based on the laboratory and perinatal outcomes of cases with additional findings. Between April 2017 and April 2019, additional findings were detected in 402/110,739 pregnancies (0.36%). For 358 cases, the origin was proven to be either fetal (n = 79; 22.1%), (assumed) confined placental mosaicism (CPM) (n = 189; 52.8%), or maternal (n = 90; 25.1%). For the remaining 44 (10.9%), the origin of the aberration could not be determined. Most fetal chromosomal aberrations were pathogenic and associated with severe clinical phenotypes (61/79; 77.2%). For CPM cases, occurrence of pre-eclampsia (8.5% [16/189] vs 0.5% [754/159,924]; RR 18.5), and birth weight <2.3rd percentile (13.6% [24/177] vs 2.5% [3,892/155,491]; RR 5.5) were significantly increased compared to the general obstetric population. Of the 90 maternal findings, 12 (13.3%) were malignancies and 32 (35.6%) (mosaic) pathogenic copy number variants, mostly associated with mild or no clinical phenotypes. Data from this large cohort study provide crucial information for deciding if and how to implement GW-NIPT in screening programs. Additionally, these data can inform the challenging interpretation, counseling, and follow-up of additional findings., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests E.A.S. was one of the applicants of the ZonMW grant and is a member of the GenQA advisory board (unpaid) and the associate editor of Extracellular Vesicles and Circulating Nucleic Acids. D.V.O. is a member of the project group NIPT additional findings and Project group NIPT Laboratories of the National Institute for Public Health & Environment (RIVM) – Center for Population Screening (CvB). L.H. was one of the applicants of the ZonMW grant. M.N.B. is a member of the project group NIPT additional findings, of the RIVM-CvB (unpaid). C.J.B. is a member of the project group NIPT additional findings, of the RIVM-CvB (unpaid). M.J.P. is a member of the Project group NIPT Quality, and Project group NIPT additional findings, all of the RIVM-CvB (unpaid). M.V.E.M. is a member of the Program Committee Prenatal Screening, Project group NIPT Quality, and Project group NIPT Laboratories, all of the RIVM-CvB (unpaid). Part of the ZonMW grant was paid to his institution for TRIDENT-2 bio-informatic research. R.-J.H.G. was one of the applicants of the ZonMW grant, and he is a member of the Program Committee Prenatal Screening, Project group NIPT Quality, and Project group NIPT additional findings, all of the RIVM-CvB (unpaid)., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

Testing options for pregnant women at increased risk of common aneuploidies are non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and invasive prenatal diagnosis (PND). Clinicians are challenged to comprehensively discuss the complex information in a patient-centered and non-directive manner, to allow for patients' informed decision-making. This study explored the information-centeredness, patient-centeredness, and level of non-directivity of different clinicians and examined group differences between their patients. First, semi-structured interviews with four senior obstetricians and one senior nurse were held regarding their information provision, their adaptation of a patient-centered attitude, and their practice of non-directivity. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and rated by four independent researchers. Secondly, 181 pregnant women were included in the study, of whom 82% opted for NIPT and 18% chose PND. Between clinicians, we assessed the distribution of choice ratios, patients' impression of clinicians' test preferences, and patients' knowledge scores. The results indicate that clinicians do not differ in their information-centeredness, but do differ in their patient-centeredness and their level of non-directivity. Significant differences in patients' NIPT/PND ratios were observed between clinicians, with the largest difference being 35 vs. 4% opting for invasive PND. Between 9 and 22% of the patients had an impression of their clinician's preference and chose in accordance with this preference. Patients' overall knowledge scores did not differ across clinicians. In conclusion, the differences in NIPT/PND ratios between clinicians indicate that clinicians' differing counseling approaches affect the choices their patients make. The interviews indicate a possible framing effect which may unintentionally steer the decision-making process.

In two studies, a possible mediation effect was tested of cognitive interpretation bias in the relation between respectively dispositional mindfulness and acceptance, on the one hand, and symptoms of depression and anxiety, on the other hand. An undergraduate student sample ( N  = 133; 86% female, M age  = 19.8) and a convenience community sample ( N  = 186; 66% female, M age  = 36.5) were examined by means of an online questionnaire measuring dispositional mindfulness (FFMQ-SF; Study 1) and acceptance (AAQ-II; Study 2), anxiety (STAI-trait) and depressive (BDI-II) symptoms, and interpretation bias (with the interpretation bias task, IBT). Considering both studies, results showed consistently the expected relations of larger mindfulness skills going together with a smaller cognitive interpretation bias and lower levels of depression and anxiety symptoms. More interestingly, it was found that interpretation bias served as a mediator in the relations between respectively dispositional mindfulness and acceptance, and symptoms of depression and anxiety. With these findings, some more insight in the working mechanisms of mindfulness-based treatments on internalizing psychopathology has been obtained., Competing Interests: No conflicts of interest.BM: designed and executed the study, assisted with the data analyses, and wrote the paper. MP: analyzed the data, wrote parts of the results and discussion, and collaborated with editing of the final manuscript. DR: collaborated with the design, writing of the discussion, and editing of the final manuscript. The Ethics Committee of the Department of Psychology, Education, and Child Studies of the Erasmus University Rotterdam provided approval for both studies.All participants in both studies signed digitally their informed consent before starting filling out the questionnaires.

Objective: The Developmental Profile Inventory (DPI) was constructed to assess psychodynamic personality functioning by self-report., Method: On the basis of the frame of reference of the Development Profile interview method, a self-report was developed covering 3 domains, self, interpersonal functioning, and problem-solving strategies, which represent 6 maladaptive and 3 adaptive developmental levels of psychodynamic functioning. The DPI was administered to patients with personality disorders who were receiving psychotherapy (N=179) and to normal controls (N=228)., Results: The internal reliabilities of the subscales were in general in the fair to good range in the patient sample, (α=0.67 to 0.88, ωh=0.52 to 0.87) and adequate to good in the healthy controls (α=0.71 to 0.91, ωh=0.71 to 0.90). Mean item-rest correlations were adequate (0.30 to 0.50). Test-retest reliability was good (intraclass correlation=0.73 to 0.91). The hypothesized factorial structure of the DPI with 9 subscales organized in 3 clusters was partly confirmed by confirmatory factor analysis χ/df=2.37, root mean square error of approximation=0.060, root mean residual square=0.078, and comparative fit index=0.630, with each factor showing over 80% standardized loadings >0.30, and at least 75% loadings >0.40. The DPI discriminated patients and healthy controls in a meaningful way. Correlations among the DPI and other self-report measures of global personality pathology and psychological complaints showed satisfactory convergent and discriminant validity., Conclusions: The DPI is a promising self-report measure for assessing both adaptive and maladaptive patterns of psychodynamic personality functioning. The appropriate initial psychometric properties justify proceeding with more formal tests of construct validity and predictive performance in broader mental health settings.

Developments in prenatal testing allow the detection of more findings. SNP arrays in prenatal diagnosis (PND) can be analyzed at 0.5 Mb resolution detecting more clinically relevant anomalies, or at 5 Mb resolution. We investigated whether women had sufficient knowledge to make informed choices regarding the scope of their prenatal test that were consistent with their attitude. Pregnant women could choose between testing at 5 or at 0.5 Mb array. Consenting women (N = 69) received pre-test genetic counseling by phone and filled out the Measure of Informed Choice questionnaire designed for this study. Choices based on sufficient knowledge and consistent with attitude were considered informed. Sixty-two percent of the women made an adequately informed choice, based on sufficient knowledge and attitude-consistent with their choice of microarray resolution. Women who made an informed choice, opted for 0.5 Mb array resolution more often. There were no differences between women making adequately informed or less informed choices regarding level of experienced anxiety or doubts. Over time on T0 and T1, anxiety and doubts significantly decreased. While previous studies demonstrated that knowledge is an important component in informed decision-making, this study underlines that a consistent attitude might be equally important for decision-making. We advocate more focus on attitude-consistency and deliberation as compared to only a strong focus on knowledge.

Considerable overlap in symptoms between patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) and schizotypal personality disorder (STPD) complicates personality diagnostics. Yet very little is known about the level of psychodynamic functioning of both personality disorders. Psychodynamic assessment procedures may specify personality characteristics relevant for differential diagnosis and treatment planning. In this cross-sectional study we explored the differences and similarities in level of personality functioning and psychodynamic features of patients with severe BPD or STPD. In total, 25 patients with BPD and 13 patients with STPD were compared regarding their level of personality functioning (General Assessment of Personality Disorder), current quasipsychotic features (Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire), and psychodynamic functioning [Developmental Profile (DP) interview and Developmental Profile Inventory (DPI) questionnaire]. Both groups of patients showed equally severe impairments in the level of personality functioning and the presence of current quasipsychotic features. As assessed by the DP interview, significant differential psychodynamic patterns were found on the primitive levels of functioning. Moreover, subjects with BPD had significantly higher scores on the adaptive developmental levels. However, the self-questionnaire DPI was not able to elucidate all of these differences. In conclusion, our study found significant differences in psychodynamic functioning between patients with BPD and STPD as assessed with the DP interview. In complicated diagnostic cases, personality assessment by psychodynamic interviewing can enhance subtle but essential differentiation between BPD and STPD.