File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Ethical Concerns in the Implementation of DNA Sequencing-Based Noninvasive Prenatal Testing for Fetal Aneuploidy Among Obstetric Professionals in Hong Kong

TitleEthical Concerns in the Implementation of DNA Sequencing-Based Noninvasive Prenatal Testing for Fetal Aneuploidy Among Obstetric Professionals in Hong Kong
Authors
KeywordsDown syndrome screening
fetal aneuploidy
Hong Kong
noninvasive prenatal testing
survey
Issue Date2015
Citation
AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 2015, v. 6, n. 1, p. 81-93 How to Cite?
AbstractBackground: Cell-free fetal DNA-sequencing-based noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for fetal aneuploidy was introduced in late 2011 in Hong Kong. While the clinical benefits of NIPT as an easy, accurate, and procedurally risk-free test at an early gestational stage are recognized, little is known about its ethical implications in antenatal care. This study aimed to assess obstetric professionals’ views of NIPT. Methods: Surveys containing closed-ended questions about knowledge and attitudes toward NIPT and views on selected ethical issues associated with it were distributed to obstetricians, nurses, and midwives practicing in both the public and private sectors in Hong Kong between October 2013 and January 2014. Results: Of the 327 respondents, 123 (38%) were NIPT providers, 138 (42%) were knowledgeable about the test but did not provide it (“nonproviders”), and 20% (66/327) had no knowledge of NIPT (“NIPT unaware”). Forty-three percent of NIPT providers and nonproviders (111/261) regarded NIPT as a primary screening test, and 27% regarded it as diagnostic test. NIPT providers were more likely than nonproviders to obtain NIPT information from university and hospital websites (p =.03), scientific reports (p <.001), or pregnant women's media (p = 001). The greatest ethical concerns among respondents were patients undertaking multiple screening tests, unequal access due to high cost, and patients’ inadequate knowledge. The social implications of possible increased rates of pregnancy terminations and increased discrimination of individuals with Down syndrome were found to be the ethical issues of least concern, but nonproviders regarded these issues as raising more ethical concerns than providers. Conclusion: Consistent with earlier research, this study found that health care providers who are familiar with NIPT see this technology as having some clinical utility while raising a number of ethical issues. Educational and informational materials should be developed to support those who deliver this service.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/318584
ISSN
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.463

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorYi, Huso-
dc.contributor.authorYung Ngan, Olivia Miu-
dc.contributor.authorGriffiths, Sian-
dc.contributor.authorSahota, Daljit-
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-11T12:24:06Z-
dc.date.available2022-10-11T12:24:06Z-
dc.date.issued2015-
dc.identifier.citationAJOB Empirical Bioethics, 2015, v. 6, n. 1, p. 81-93-
dc.identifier.issn2329-4515-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/318584-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Cell-free fetal DNA-sequencing-based noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for fetal aneuploidy was introduced in late 2011 in Hong Kong. While the clinical benefits of NIPT as an easy, accurate, and procedurally risk-free test at an early gestational stage are recognized, little is known about its ethical implications in antenatal care. This study aimed to assess obstetric professionals’ views of NIPT. Methods: Surveys containing closed-ended questions about knowledge and attitudes toward NIPT and views on selected ethical issues associated with it were distributed to obstetricians, nurses, and midwives practicing in both the public and private sectors in Hong Kong between October 2013 and January 2014. Results: Of the 327 respondents, 123 (38%) were NIPT providers, 138 (42%) were knowledgeable about the test but did not provide it (“nonproviders”), and 20% (66/327) had no knowledge of NIPT (“NIPT unaware”). Forty-three percent of NIPT providers and nonproviders (111/261) regarded NIPT as a primary screening test, and 27% regarded it as diagnostic test. NIPT providers were more likely than nonproviders to obtain NIPT information from university and hospital websites (p =.03), scientific reports (p <.001), or pregnant women's media (p = 001). The greatest ethical concerns among respondents were patients undertaking multiple screening tests, unequal access due to high cost, and patients’ inadequate knowledge. The social implications of possible increased rates of pregnancy terminations and increased discrimination of individuals with Down syndrome were found to be the ethical issues of least concern, but nonproviders regarded these issues as raising more ethical concerns than providers. Conclusion: Consistent with earlier research, this study found that health care providers who are familiar with NIPT see this technology as having some clinical utility while raising a number of ethical issues. Educational and informational materials should be developed to support those who deliver this service.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofAJOB Empirical Bioethics-
dc.subjectDown syndrome screening-
dc.subjectfetal aneuploidy-
dc.subjectHong Kong-
dc.subjectnoninvasive prenatal testing-
dc.subjectsurvey-
dc.titleEthical Concerns in the Implementation of DNA Sequencing-Based Noninvasive Prenatal Testing for Fetal Aneuploidy Among Obstetric Professionals in Hong Kong-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/23294515.2014.993096-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84924370775-
dc.identifier.volume6-
dc.identifier.issue1-
dc.identifier.spage81-
dc.identifier.epage93-
dc.identifier.eissn2329-4523-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats