↓ Skip to main content

Implementing non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy in a national healthcare system: global challenges and national solutions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 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
Implementing non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy in a national healthcare system: global challenges and national solutions
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2618-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachèl V. van Schendel, Carla G. van El, Eva Pajkrt, Lidewij Henneman, Martina C. Cornel

Abstract

Since the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in 2011, mainly by commercial companies, a growing demand for NIPT from the public and healthcare professionals has been putting pressure on the healthcare systems of various countries. This study identifies the challenges of establishing a responsible implementation of NIPT for aneuploidy in prenatal healthcare, by looking at the Netherlands. A mixed methods approach involving 13 stakeholder interviews, document analysis and (participatory) observations of the Dutch NIPT Consortium meetings were used. The Diffusion of Innovation Theory and a Network of Actors model were used to interpret the findings. Implementation of NIPT was facilitated by several factors. The set-up of a national NIPT Consortium enabled discussion and collaboration between stakeholders. Moreover, it led to the plan to offer NIPT through a nationwide research setting (TRIDENT studies), which created a learning phase for careful implementation. The Dutch legal context was perceived as a delaying factor, but eventually gave room for the parties involved to organise themselves and their practices. This study shows that implementing advanced technologies with profound effects on prenatal care benefit from a learning phase that allows time to carefully evaluate the technical performance and women's experiences and to enable public debate. Such a coordinated learning phase, involving all stakeholders, will stimulate the process of responsible and sustainable implementation.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 114 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 13%
Student > Master 14 12%
Other 11 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Researcher 7 6%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 37 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 11%
Psychology 6 5%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Other 22 19%
Unknown 37 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 13 May 2019.
All research outputs
#15,494,712
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,627
of 7,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,660
of 318,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#87
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,709 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 318,259 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.