Comparing prenatal screening experiences of Icelandic women who received false-positive and true-negative first-trimester combined screening results in Iceland in 2012-2016.
Cast your vote
You can rate an item by clicking the amount of stars they wish to award to this item.
When enough users have cast their vote on this item, the average rating will also be shown.
Your vote was cast
Thank you for your feedback
Thank you for your feedback
Rut Haraldsdottir, Kristin
MetadataShow full item record
CitationThorolfsdottir E, Lunde Å, Stefansdottir V, Hjartardottir H, Rut Haraldsdottir K. Comparing prenatal screening experiences of Icelandic women who received false-positive and true-negative first-trimester combined screening results in Iceland in 2012-2016 [published online ahead of print, 2020 Mar 21]. J Genet Couns. 2020;10.1002/jgc4.1269. doi:10.1002/jgc4.1269
AbstractFirst-trimester combined screening (FTS) has been offered to all pregnant women in Iceland since 2003. Individuals with high-risk FTS results are offered an invasive test option with a ≤1% risk of fetal loss. This study gives insight into the prenatal screening and diagnosis experiences and preferences of 101 women who underwent FTS in Iceland in the years 2012-2016, comparing the experience of those who received false-positive FTS results to those who received true-negative results. Retrospective patient-reported anxiety levels at the time of receiving FTS results were significantly higher in those who received false-positive results compared to those who received true-negative results. For a subset of these participants, the anxiety lasted through pregnancy, and for a smaller subset, it lasted even longer. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is currently not offered in Iceland, aside from the rare exceptional case. Given the extremely low false-positive rates of NIPT, we believe NIPT is worth considering as Iceland's standard first-tier screening method for trisomy 13, 18, and 21. We believe the findings of this study are beneficial not only for Iceland but also for other countries where FTS is the first-tier prenatal screening method or the only offered test. Additionally, only 21% of participants in our study reported that they had heard of NIPT, which emphasizes the need for comprehensive NIPT pretest information to be available prior to its uptake to ensure informed and autonomous decision-making.
DescriptionTo access publisher's full text version of this article click on the hyperlink below
Rights© 2020 National Society of Genetic Counselors.
- Prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidies with cell-free DNA in the general pregnancy population: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
- Authors: Fairbrother G, Burigo J, Sharon T, Song K
- Issue date: 2016
- 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.
- Authors: Bakkeren IM, Kater-Kuipers A, Bunnik EM, Go ATJI, Tibben A, de Beaufort ID, Galjaard RH, Riedijk SR
- Issue date: 2020 Feb
- Screening for chromosomal abnormalities by first trimester combined screening and noninvasive prenatal testing.
- Authors: Kagan KO, Hoopmann M, Hammer R, Stressig R, Kozlowski P
- Issue date: 2015 Feb
- The potential impact of NIPT as a second-tier screen on the outcomes of high-risk pregnancies with rare chromosomal abnormalities.
- Authors: Maxwell S, Dickinson JE, Murch A, O'Leary P
- Issue date: 2015 Oct
- Prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy in singleton pregnancies.
- Authors: Chitayat D, Langlois S, Douglas Wilson R, SOGC GENETICS COMMITTEE., CCMG PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS COMMITTEE.
- Issue date: 2011 Jul