Cited by 48Prenatal Screening and DiagnosticsMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum

It’s More Than a Blood Test: Patients’ Perspectives on Noninvasive Prenatal Testing

Open access
Farrell, Ruth, Mercer, Mary, Agatisa, Patricia, Smith, Marissa, Philipson, Elliot·2014·Journal of Clinical Medicine

Abstract

Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) offers pregnant women a new risk assessment tool for fetal aneuploidy that is superior to conventional screening tests. We conducted focus groups with women who were currently pregnant or had recently delivered in the past year to characterize their perspectives about NIPT and to explore factors they would consider during decision making about its use. Women identified accuracy, early timing, testing ease, and determination of fetal sex as advantages of NIPT over other screens, and the noninvasive method of NIPT as an advantage over diagnostic tests. False positive and false negative results, anxiety, cost and insurance coverage were seen as disadvantages of NIPT. Women who do not want fetal aneuploidy information most likely will not undergo NIPT, despite its advantages over other screening tests. However, given its advantages, the decision to have NIPT is straightforward for women who want genetic information about the fetus. Women emphasized the need to make autonomous, private, and informed choices about NIPT, as they would with any prenatal genetic testing option. These perspectives may guide clinicians to conduct effective and clinically relevant counseling with pregnant women who consider utilizing this new genetic technology.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/jcm3020614

Cites

35 of 36 references verified1 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Farrell, R., Mercer, M., Agatisa, P., Smith, M., & Philipson, E.
Affiliations
Cleveland Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Farrell, Ruth
Venue
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2014-06-19
Volume
3
Issue
2
Pages
614-631
ISSN
2077-0383 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1975810962
Cited by
47
References
35
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
FWCI
5.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
March of Dimes Foundation (12-FY13-293)
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 › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Keywords
non-invasive prenatal testing, patient perspectives, fetal aneuploidy, prenatal genetic testing, informed consent, genetic counseling, decision-making, fetal sex determination, false positives, anxiety, autonomy

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