↓ Skip to main content

Obstetric professionals’ perceptions of non-invasive prenatal testing for Down syndrome: clinical usefulness compared with existing tests and ethical implications

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Obstetric professionals’ perceptions of non-invasive prenatal testing for Down syndrome: clinical usefulness compared with existing tests and ethical implications
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12884-017-1474-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olivia Miu Yung Ngan, Huso Yi, Samuel Yeung Shan Wong, Daljit Sahota, Shenaz Ahmed

Abstract

While non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for fetal aneuploidy is commercially available in many countries, little is known about how obstetric professionals in non-Western populations perceive the clinical usefulness of NIPT in comparison with existing first-trimester combined screening (FTS) for Down syndrome (DS) or invasive prenatal diagnosis (IPD), or perceptions of their ethical concerns arising from the use of NIPT. A cross-sectional survey among 327 obstetric professionals (237 midwives, 90 obstetricians) in Hong Kong. Compared to FTS, NIPT was believed to: provide more psychological benefits and enable earlier consideration of termination of pregnancy. Compared to IPD, NIPT was believed to: provide less psychological stress for high-risk women and more psychological assurance for low-risk women, and offer an advantage to detect chromosomal abnormalities earlier. Significant differences in perceived clinical usefulness were found by profession and healthcare sector: (1) obstetricians reported more certain views towards the usefulness of NIPT than midwives and (2) professionals in the public sector perceived less usefulness of NIPT than the private sector. Beliefs about earlier detection of DS using NIPT were associated with ethical concerns about increasing abortion. Participants believing that NIPT provided psychological assurance among low-risk women were less likely to be concerned about ethical issues relating to informed decision-making and pre-test consultation for NIPT. Our findings suggest the need for political debate initially on how to ensure pregnant women accessing public services are informed about commercially available more advanced technology, but also on the potential implementation of NIPT within public services to improve access and equity to DS screening services.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 122 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 14%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Researcher 8 7%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 42 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 26 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 18%
Psychology 11 9%
Social Sciences 10 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 5%
Other 4 3%
Unknown 43 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 July 2018.
All research outputs
#14,029,617
of 23,758,334 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#2,593
of 4,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,999
of 316,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#65
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,758,334 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,386 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,763 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.