The last decade has experienced unprecedented uptake of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT), creating significant changes in the way prenatal clinicians provide services. Through the lens of social shaping of technology, we examine the effects of the introduction of this technology on the health care system in Ontario, Canada. Using a qualitative descriptive approach, we conducted a cross-sectional study investigating clinicians’ perspectives of NIPT in 2014, 2016, and 2018. Through in-depth interviews (n = 37), we explored their perspectives on the impact of NIPT on their referral practices, workload, coordination of testing modalities, education and counseling, and elicited their views on recent expansions of the test. Findings suggest that the introduction of NIPT has created unintended consequences with respect to clinician workload and wellness, clinician education, equity of access, and public system resources. Responsiveness from decision makers is key to ensuring the responsible use of NIPT in the health care system.
AikenL. H.ClarkeS. P.SloaneD. M.SochalskiJ.SilberJ. H. (2005). Hospital nurse staffing and patient mortality, emotional exhaustion, and job dissatisfaction. Clinical Nurse Specialist, 19(5), 252–254. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002800-200509000-00008.
2.
AllyseM.MinearM. A.BersonE.SridharS.RoteM.HungA.ChandrasekharanS. (2015). Non-invasive prenatal testing: A review of international implementation and challenges. International Journal of Women’s Health, 7, 113–126. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S67124
3.
AudibertF.De BieI.JohnsonJ.-A.OkunN.WilsonR. D.ArmourC.. . . KimR. (2017). No. 348-joint SOGC-CCMG guideline: Update on prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy, fetal anomalies, and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, 39(9), 805–817. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOGC.2017.01.032
4.
BacchiC. (2012). Introducing the “what’s the problem represented to be?”Approach. In BletsasA.BeasleyC. (Eds.), Engaging with Carol Bacchi: Strategic interventions and exchanges (pp. 21–24). University of Adelaide Press.
5.
BeauchampT. L.ChildressJ. F. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
6.
BianchiD. W.Van MieghemT.ShafferL. G.FaasB. H. W.ChittyL. S.GhidiniA.DeprestJ. (2014). In case you missed it: The Prenatal Diagnosis section editors bring you the most significant advances of 2013. Prenatal Diagnosis, 34(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4288
7.
BijkerW. E. (2009). How is technology made?-That is the question!Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bep068
8.
BlumerH. (1954). What is wrong with social theory?American Sociological Review, 19(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.2307/2088165
9.
BonebrightD. A. (2010). 40 years of storming: A historical review of Tuckman’s model of small group development. Human Resource Development International, 13(1), 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678861003589099
CalmanL.BruntonL.MolassiotisA. (2013). Developing longitudinal qualitative designs: Lessons learned and recommendations for health services research. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-14
12.
CernatA.FreitasC.De MajidU.TrivediF.HigginsC.VanstoneM. (2019). Facilitating informed choice about non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): A systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis of women’s experiences. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth19, Article 27.
13.
CharmazK. (2003). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies for qualitative inquiry (2nd ed., pp. 249–291). Sage.
14.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage.
15.
ChittyL. S.BianchiD. W. (2013). Noninvasive prenatal testing: The paradigm is shifting rapidly. Prenatal Diagnosis, 33(6), 511–513. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4136
16.
ChittyL. S.HudginsL.NortonM. E. (2018). Current controversies in prenatal diagnosis 2: Cell-free DNA prenatal screening should be used to identify all chromosome abnormalities. Prenatal Diagnosis, 38(3), 160–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.5216
17.
CollingridgeD. (1980). The social control of technology. Frances Pinter.
18.
CorbinJ. M. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage.
19.
Cummings. (2017). Cross-sectional design. In MAllen (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of communication research methods. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483381411
20.
de JongA.DondorpW. J.de Die-SmuldersC. E. M.FrintsS. G. M.de WertG. M. W. R. (2010). Non-invasive prenatal testing: Ethical issues explored. European Journal of Human Genetics, 18(3), 272–277. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2009.203
21.
Demers-PayetteO.LehouxP.DaudelinG. (2016). Responsible research and innovation: A productive model for the future of medical innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 3(3), 188–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2016.1256659
22.
DondorpW.de WertG.BombardY.BianchiD. W.BergmannC.BorryP.. . . CornelM. C. (2015). Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy and beyond: Challenges of responsible innovation in prenatal screening. European Journal of Human Genetics, 23(11), 1438–1450. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2015.57
23.
FarrimondH. R.KellyS. E. (2013). Public viewpoints on new non-invasive prenatal genetic tests. Public Understanding of Science, 22(6), 730–744. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662511424359
24.
FixsenD. L.BlaséK. A.TimbersG. D.WolfM. M. (2007). In search of program implementation: 792 replications of the Teaching-Family Model. The Behavior Analyst Today, 8(1), 96–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100104
HaidarH.DuprasC.RavitskyV. (2016). Non-invasive prenatal testing: Review of ethical, legal and social implications. BioethiqueOnline, 5. https://doi.org/10.7202/1044264ar
27.
HaidarH.VanstoneM.LabergeA. M.BibeauG.GhulmiyyahL.RavitskyV. (2018). Cross-cultural perspectives on decision making regarding noninvasive prenatal testing: A comparative study of Lebanon and Quebec. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 9(2), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2018.1469551
28.
HaidarH.VanstoneM.LabergeA. M.BibeauG.GhulmiyyahL.RavitskyV. (2020). Implementation challenges for an ethical introduction of noninvasive prenatal testing: A qualitative study of healthcare professionals’ views from Lebanon and Quebec. BMC Medical Ethics, 21(1), Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-0455-x
IsHakW.NikraveshR.LedererS.PerryR.OgunyemiD.BernsteinC. (2013). Burnout in medical students: A systematic review. The Clinical Teacher, 10(4), 242–245. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.12014
32.
KibelM.VanstoneM. (2017). Reconciling ethical and economic conceptions of value in health policy using the capabilities approach: A qualitative investigation of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing. Social Science & Medicine, 195, 97–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.11.024
33.
LehouxP.RoncaroloF.Rocha OliveiraR.Pacifico SilvaH. (2016). Medical innovation and the sustainability of health systems: A historical perspective on technological change in health. Health Services Management Research, 29(4), 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0951484816670192
34.
LewisC.SilcockC.ChittyL. S. (2013). Non-invasive prenatal testing for down’s syndrome: Pregnant women’s views and likely uptake. Public Health Genomics, 16(5), 223–232. https://doi.org/10.1159/000353523
35.
LongS.GoldblattJ. (2014). Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in Western Australia; Considerations in clinical practice. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 54(5), 487–489. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12232
36.
LöwyI. (2014). How genetics came to the unborn: 1960-2000. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 47, 154–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2014.05.015
37.
MacKenzieD.WajcmanJ. (1999). Introductory essay: The social shaping of technology In The social shaping of technology (2nd ed., pp. 2–27). Open University Press. https://doi.org/10.3987/Contents-03-61-01
38.
MackieF.HemmingK.AllenS.MorrisR.KilbyM. (2017). The accuracy of cell-free fetal DNA-based non-invasive prenatal testing in singleton pregnancies: A systematic review and bivariate meta-analysis. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 124(1), 32–46.
39.
MartinK.IyengarS.KalyanA.LanC.SimonA. L.StosicM.. . . BennP. (2018). Clinical experience with a single-nucleotide polymorphism-based non-invasive prenatal test for five clinically significant microdeletions. Clinical Genetics, 93(2), 293–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/cge.13098
40.
MayC.FinchT. (2009). Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: An outline of normalization process theory. Sociology, 43(3), 535–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038509103208
41.
MetzA.BartleyL. (2012). Active implementation frameworks for program success: How to use implementation science to improve outcomes for children. Zero to Three, 32(4), 11–18.
42.
MinearM. A.LewisC.PradhanS.ChandrasekharanS. (2015). Global perspectives on clinical adoption of NIPT. Prenatal Diagnosis, 35(10), 959–967.
QSR International. (2015). NVivo 11 qualitative data analysis software.
48.
RavitskyV. (2017). The shifting landscape of prenatal testing: Between reproductive autonomy and public health. Hastings Center Report, 47(Suppl. 3), S34–S40. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.793
49.
RogersE. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
50.
RotensteinL. S.RamosM. A.TorreM.Bradley SegalJ.PelusoM. J.GuilleC.. . . MataD. A. (2016). Prevalence of depression, depressive symptoms, and suicidal ideation among medical students a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association, 316(21), 2214–2236. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.17324
51.
RothmanB. K. (1993). The tentative pregnancy: How amniocentesis changes the experience of motherhood. W. W. Norton.
52.
RussellS.WilliamsR. (2002). Social shaping of technology: Frameworks, findings and implications for policy with glossary of social shaping concepts. In K. Sorenson, & R. Williams (Eds.), Shaping technology, guiding policy: Concepts, spaces and tools (pp. 37–132).
53.
SandelowskiM. (2010). What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Research in Nursing & Health, 33(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20362
54.
SilvaH. P.LehouxP.MillerF. A.DenisJ. L. (2018). Introducing responsible innovation in health: A policy-oriented framework. Health Research Policy and Systems, 16(1), Article 90. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0362-5
55.
SkirtonH.GoldsmithL.JacksonL.LewisC.ChittyL. (2014). Offering prenatal diagnostic tests: European guidelines for clinical practice. European Journal of Human Genetics, 22(5), 580–586. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2013.205
TaylorJ. S. (2008). The public life of the fetal sonogram: Technology, consumption, and the politics of reproduction. Rutgers University Press.
58.
ter MeulenR. H. J. (2005). The ethical basis of the precautionary principle in health care decision making. In Toxicology and applied pharmacology (Vol. 207, pp. 663–667). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2004.11.032
59.
TuckmanB. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100
60.
VanstoneM.CernatA.NiskerJ.SchwartzL. (2018). Women’s perspectives on the ethical implications of non-invasive prenatal testing: A qualitative analysis to inform health policy decisions. BMC Medical Ethics, 19, Article 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-018-0267-4
61.
VanstoneM.KingC.de VrijerB.NiskerJ. (2014). Non-invasive prenatal testing: Ethics and policy considerations. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, 36(6), 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1701-2163(15)30568-5
62.
VanstoneM.KinsellaE. A.NiskerJ. (2012). Information-sharing to promote informed choice in prenatal screening in the spirit of the SOGC clinical practice guideline: A proposal for an alternative model. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, 34(3), 269–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1701-2163(16)35188-X
63.
VanstoneM.YacoubK.GIacominiM.HulanD.McDonaldS. (2015a). Women’s experiences of publicly funded non-invasive prenatal testing in Ontario, Canada: Considerations for health technology policy-making. Qualitative Health Research, 25(8), 1069–1084. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315589745
64.
VanstoneM.YacoubK.WinsorS.GiacominiM.NiskerJ. (2015b). What Is “NIPT”? Divergent characterizations of noninvasive prenatal testing strategies. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 6(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2014.993102
65.
WajcmanJ.MacKenzieD. A. (1988). The social shaping of technology: How the refrigerator got its hum. Open University Press.
66.
WassonK.CookD.HelzlsouerK. (2006). Direct-to-consumer online genetic testing and the four principles: An analysis of the ethical issues. Ethics & Medicine, 22(2), 83–91.
67.
WilliamsR. (1997). The social shaping of information communication technologies. In KubicekH.DuttonW.WilliamsR. (Eds.), The social shaping of information superhighways: European and American roads to the information society (pp. 299–338). St. Martin’s Press.
WilsonK. L.CzerwinskiJ. L.HoskovecJ. M.NoblinS. J.SullivanC. M.HarbisonA.. . . SingletaryC. N. (2013). NSGC practice guideline: Prenatal screening and diagnostic testing options for chromosome aneuploidy. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 22(1), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-012-9545-3
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
