Supporting patient decision-making in non-invasive prenatal testing: a comparative study of professional values and practices in England and France.

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), which can screen for aneuploidies such as trisomy 21, is being implemented in several public healthcare systems across Europe. Comprehensive communication and information have been highlighted in the literature as important elements in supporting women's reproductive decision-making and addressing relevant ethical concerns such as routinisation. Countries such as England and France are adopting broadly similar implementation models, offering NIPT for pregnancies with high aneuploidy probability. However, we do not have a deeper understanding of how professionals' counselling values and practices may differ between these contexts. METHODS: In this paper, we explore how professionals in England and France support patient decision-making in the provision of NIPT and critically compare professional practices and values. We draw on data from semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals. RESULTS: Both English and French professionals emphasised values relating to patient choice and consent. However, understandings and application of these values into the practice of NIPT provision differed. English interviewees placed a stronger emphasis on interpreting and describing the process of counselling patients and clinical care through a "principle" lens. Their focus was on non-directiveness, standardisation, and the healthcare professional as "decision-facilitator" for patients. French interviewees described their approach through a "procedural" lens. Their focus was on formal consent, information, and the healthcare professional as "information-giver". Both English and French professionals indicated that insufficient resources were a key barrier in effectively translating their values into practice. CONCLUSION: Our findings illustrate that supporting patient choice in the provision of NIPT may be held as an important value in common on a surface level, but can be understood and translated into practice in different ways. Our findings can guide further research and beneficially inform practice and policy around NIPT provision.

Women's preferences for NIPT as a first-line test in England and France: Challenges for genetic counseling practices.

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is provided in the private and public sectors worldwide as a first- or second-tier test. In England and France, NIPT is fully funded and offered as a contingent strategy with different probability cut-offs (1:150 and 1:1000). These different approaches to define the target population for NIPT have implications for how women experience their antenatal care. The paper explores and compares the perceptions and difficulties of women in England and France who took NIPT as a second-tier screening test. It is based on a semi-structured qualitative interview study with 17 women in England and France conducted between September 2021 and May 2022. The interviews were cross-analyzed using thematic analysis. Our findings show that most women express a preference for the offer of NIPT as a first-line screening test. Some issues with the contingent model, related to the access to information and termination of pregnancy (TOP), the disparities of NIPT uptake, and risks of generating anxiety with combined first-trimester screening (cFTS), could be addressed by a universal strategy for T21, T13, and T18. Nevertheless, this strategy could present some challenges for genetic counseling due to: women's understanding and expectations of NIPT; adequate information and counseling about the scope and limits of NIPT; concerns about the routinization of NIPT in the first-line offer; limitations and uncertainties associated with the provision of expanded NIPT in France; the remaining importance of other screening tests; and associated costs.

Preserving women's reproductive autonomy while promoting the rights of people with disabilities?: the case of Heidi Crowter and Maire Lea-Wilson in the light of NIPT debates in England, France and Germany.

On July 2021, the UK High Court of Justice heard the Case CO/2066/2020 on the application of Heidi Crowter who lives with Down's syndrome, and Máire Lea-Wilson whose son Aidan has Down's syndrome. Crowter and Lea-Wilson, with the support of the disability rights campaign, 'Don't Screen Us Out', have been taking legal action against the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (the UK Government) for a review of the 1967 Abortion Act: the removal of section 1(1)(d) making termination of pregnancy lawful for 'severe' fetal indications detected after 24 weeks' gestation. On 23 September 2021, the High Court dismissed the claim. This action came at a time when non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) was introduced into the NHS England Fetal Anomaly Screening Programme for the trisomies 21, 13 and 18. The implementation of NIPT has been heavily criticised, in particular by 'Don't Screen Us Out' campaigners, for increasing fetal selection and discrimination of people living with disabilities. The case of Crowter and Lea-Wilson echoes debates in other European countries such as in France and Germany, where the introduction of NIPT in the public healthcare system has provoked equally vehement public reactions and discussions. The comparison between these three countries allows contextualising the public discourses around NIPT and the ground for termination of pregnancy in relation to different socio-cultural and political contexts. We examine how each country, and particularly England, deals with the conflict between the principles of promoting the rights of people living with disabilities and preserving women's reproductive autonomy.

Health professionals and scientists' views on genome-wide NIPT in the French public health system: Critical analysis of the ethical issues raised by prenatal genomics.

In France, since January 2020, laboratories have started to make available genome-wide Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (GW-NIPT) beyond the three common trisomies (T21, T13 and T18) at the same cost as standard NIPT. With the possible margins for interpretation of the legal framework and in the absence of clear and updated guidelines, health professionals are left with questions about which type of screening offer may be clinically responsible, morally appropriate, and, at the same time, respectful of women's values and ability to make autonomous choices. The aim of this study is to provide an analysis and understanding of the challenging dimensions of clinical practices in the context of evolving scientific knowledge and techniques in prenatal genomics. In this article, we develop a critical analysis of the arguments and concerns that emerge around the offer of expanded NIPT and are discussed by health professionals and scientists. To achieve this, we conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with 17 health professionals and scientists from September 2021 to February 2022 and a comprehensive literature review (regulatory, scientific, medical, institutional sources). The results of our empirical research highlight the importance of addressing ethical issues related to the differing quality of counselling, the complexity of achieving informed consent, and the avoidance of harm to pregnant women in the feedback of findings beyond T21, T18 and T13. If there is an increase in the provision of GW-NIPT within the French public health system, it will be essential to promote medical practices that respect reproductive choices of women, support their autonomous decision and their understanding of the limitations and uncertainties associated with GW screening. Further research is required to provide an insight into women's perceptions in order to refine our analysis from the patients' perspective.

The ethical landscape(s) of non-invasive prenatal testing in England, France and Germany: findings from a comparative literature review.

Since 2019, England, France and Germany have started offering NIPT as a publicly funded second-tier test for common chromosomal aneuploidies (trisomy 21, 18 and/or 13). Despite these benefits, the introduction of NIPT into routine prenatal care also raises a number of ethical concerns. In this paper, we analyse how these issues are discussed differently across countries, echoing the different socio-political particularities and value-systems that shape the use and regulation of NIPT in a specific country. The international comparison between England, France and Germany shows how each country defines the principle of reproductive autonomy and weighs it against other principles and values, such as, human dignity, disability rights and the duty of care of health professionals. In terms of methodology, our literature review focuses on arguments and regulations of prenatal testing and reproductive choices (specifically on NIPT), through the investigation of regulatory, parliamentary, scientific, medical, association, institutional and media sources. The comparative review helps to better understand ethical questions discussed with regard to NIPT, and, more broadly, to prenatal genomic testing, and the limits associated with reproductive autonomy in the three countries studied. Whereas reproductive autonomy is valued in each country, it is understood and implemented differently depending on the socio-cultural context, and on what other principles are evoked and how they are defined.