Cited by 46Prenatal Screening and DiagnosticsMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsReproductive Health and Technologies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Women’s Experiences of Publicly Funded Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing in Ontario, Canada: Considerations for Health Technology Policy-Making

Abstract

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) via fetal DNA in maternal blood has been publicly funded in Ontario, Canada, for high-risk women since 2014. We solicited women's experiences and values related to this new health technology to describe how this test is currently being used in Ontario and to provide information about patient priorities to inform future policy decisions about the use of NIPT. Guided by constructivist grounded theory methodology, we interviewed 38 women who had diverse personal experiences with NIPT. Participants' accounts of their values for decision making about NIPT heavily relied on three mutually modulating factors: timing, accuracy, and risk. The values expressed by women conflict with the way that publicly funded NIPT has typically been implemented in Ontario. We offer recommendations for how NIPT might be integrated into prenatal care pathways in a way more consistent with women's values.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1049732315589745

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Quotes from women from interviews or focus groups on waiting time and accuracy of test results correspond to van Schendel et al.'s findings from questionnaires: waiting time was experienced as long and/or stressful, and women had a high confidence in negative NIPT results.

    “Quotes from women from interviews (Vanstone et al. [25]) or focus groups (Farrell et al. [19]) on the aspects of waiting time and accuracy of test results correspond to Van Schendel et al.’s findings from questionnaires: Waiting time was experienced as long and/or stressful, and women had a high confidence in negative NIPT results.”
  • The scoping review identified seven studies that investigated psychological and/or social consequences after NIPT.

    “In this scoping review, we identified seven studies that investigated psychological and/or social consequences after NIPT [19–25].”
  • Two included studies assessed women's experiences with and feelings after NIPT in interviews or focus groups.

    “Two studies assessed women’s experiences with and feelings after NIPT in interviews or focus groups [19, 25].”
  • Most included studies recruited women with an elevated Down syndrome screening risk, while two studies recruited from an unselected population regarding Down syndrome screening.

    “Most studies recruited women with an elevated Down syndrome screening (DSS) risk (medium and/or high risk, cut-offs vary, range from > 1:1000 to 1:1–125) [20–22, 24, 25], two studies recruited from an unselected population regarding DSS [19, 23].”

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 73 · Cited by 46

Research works printed but not linked: 68

  1. 10.1038/jp.2014.30 · DOI
  2. 10.1097/01.AOG.0000423819.85283.f4 · DOI
  3. 10.1177/096973309900600205 · DOI
  4. 10.3310/hta3010 · DOI
  5. 10.1002/pd.2919 · DOI
  6. 10.1002/uog.12513 · DOI
  7. 10.1002/pd.4229 · DOI
  8. 10.1373/clinchem.2013.202663 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.02.025 · DOI
  10. Carroll J. C., 1997, Canadian Medical Association Journal, 156, 775
  11. 10.1002/pd.4544 · DOI
  12. Charmaz K., 2006, Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis
  13. 10.1002/pd.4125 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)34961-1 · DOI
  15. 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.02.021 · DOI
  16. 10.1177/1477750913511339 · DOI
  17. 10.1007/s10728-010-0146-8 · DOI
  18. 10.1007/s10897-012-9564-0 · DOI
  19. 10.1080/00016340903144246 · DOI
  20. Flick U., 2004, A companion to qualitative research, 178
  21. Flick U., 2008, Managing quality in qualitative research
  22. Gamma Dynacare, 2014, OHIP now covers payments for the Harmony Prenatal Test Information Bulletin
  23. 10.1002/(sici)1097-0223(199901)19:1<1::aid-pd456>3.0.co;2-s · DOI
  24. 10.1016/S0168-8510(03)00100-3 · DOI
  25. 10.1111/j.1539-6053.2008.00033.x · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262016032.001.0001 · DOI
  27. Grace G., 1998, Being reflexive in critical educational and social research, 202
  28. 10.1038/gim.2013.29 · DOI
  29. Grimes D. A., 1999, Obstetrics & Gynecology, 93, 910
  30. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.10.018 · DOI
  31. 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2012.03.004 · DOI
  32. 10.1038/gim.2012.68 · DOI
  33. 10.1002/ajmg.a.35972 · DOI
  34. 10.1017/S0266462308080550 · DOI
  35. Hunt L. M., 2003, Risk, culture, and health inequality: Shifting perceptions of danger and blame, 74
  36. 10.1002/pd.1218 · DOI
  37. 10.1002/pd.4194 · DOI
  38. 10.1177/0272989X09333122 · DOI
  39. 10.1023/a:1016378415514 · DOI
  40. 10.1177/1049732313484198 · DOI
  41. 10.1016/S1701-2163(15)31025-2 · DOI
  42. 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.06.038 · DOI
  43. 10.1111/1471-0528.12579 · DOI
  44. 10.1017/S0098858800007917 · DOI
  45. 10.1017/CBO9780511520778.004 · DOI
  46. 10.1080/13698575.2011.624179 · DOI
  47. McKechnie A. C., 2014, Qualitative Health Research
  48. 10.1080/10810730903032986 · DOI
  49. 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.05.021 · DOI
  50. 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31828642c6 · DOI
  51. 10.1016/j.ajog.2006.10.692 · DOI
  52. 10.1016/j.midw.2007.04.007 · DOI
  53. Public Health Agency of Canada, 2009, What mothers say: The Canadian Maternity Experiences Survey
  54. 10.1258/ce.2010.010041 · DOI
  55. 10.1111/hex.12159 · DOI
  56. Statistics Canada, 2012, Women in Canada: A gender-based statistical report
  57. 10.1007/s10897-013-9609-z · DOI
  58. 10.1002/pd.2888 · DOI
  59. 10.3109/14767058.2013.806477 · DOI
  60. 10.1016/j.pec.2009.05.014 · DOI
  61. 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)30720-4 · DOI
  62. 10.1016/S1701-2163(15)30568-5 · DOI
  63. 10.1080/23294515.2014.993102 · DOI
  64. 10.1038/gim.2014.92 · DOI
  65. 10.1016/S1701-2163(15)30444-8 · DOI
  66. 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)32501-4 · DOI
  67. 10.1093/humupd/dmn047 · DOI
  68. 10.1186/1756-0500-5-476 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Vanstone, M., Yacoub, K., Giacomini, M., Hulan, D., & McDonald, S.
Affiliations
McMaster University (CA)
Venue
Qualitative Health Research
Published
2015-06-10
Volume
25
Issue
8
Pages
1069-1084
ISSN
  • 1049-7323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7557
OpenAlex
W2112270693
Cited by
46
References
73
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 1
FWCI
5.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Qualitative Health Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • McMaster University
  • Public Health Agency of Canada
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (136734)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
Keywords
non-invasive prenatal testing, publicly funded health services, women's experiences, patient values, prenatal decision-making, high-risk pregnancy, diagnostic accuracy, risk perception, timing of testing, Ontario
MeSH terms
Adult, Decision Making, Female, Financing, Government, Genetic Testing, Hematologic Tests, Humans, Ontario, Pregnancy, Prenatal Care, Socioeconomic Factors, Time Factors, Qualitative Research, Policy, Grounded Theory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review