The acceptance of disability within society is increasing. However advances in clinical and medical procedures make it easier to test for genetic markers and to allow pregnant women to choose to terminate a pregnancy. One of the screenings offered is for Down syndrome. The availability of this screening is often cause for discussion within society. The way in which this screening test and subsequent results are delivered can prompt difficult emotions in parents. This narrative review aims to draw together papers exploring the opinions on prenatal testing from parents of individuals with Down syndrome. Twelve studies were analysed using Thematic Synthesis. Five superordinate themes were identified: decision making and reason for not testing, professionals, post-test emotions, societal opinions, opinions on the logistics of testing. The results suggest that there are still varied opinions and experiences of prenatal testing, often dependant on interactions with society and professionals.
ÅsbergK.K.VogelJ.J.BowersC.A., (2008). Exploring correlates and predictors of stress in parents of children who are deaf: Implications of perceived social support and mode of communication. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 17, pp.486-499.
BuckleyF.BuckleyS., (2008). Wrongful deaths and rightful lives-screening for Down syndrome. Down Syndrome Research and Practice, 12(2), pp.79-86.
4.
CanbulatN.Demirgöz BalM.CopluM., (2014). Emotional reactions of mothers who have babies who are diagnosed with Down syndrome. International Journal of Nursing Knowledge, 25(3), pp.147-153.
EntwistleV.A.FranceE.F.WykeS.JepsonR.HuntK.ZieblandS.ThompsonA., (2011). How information about other people's personal experiences can help with healthcare decision-making: a qualitative study. Patient Education and Counseling, 85(3), pp.e291-e298.
9.
GadsbøllK.PetersenO.B.GatinoisV.StrangeH.JacobssonB.WapnerR.VermeeschJ.R.NIPT‐map Study GroupVogelI., (2020). Current use of noninvasive prenatal testing in Europe, Australia and the USA: a graphical presentation. Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 99(6), pp.722-730.
10.
GrantM.J.BoothA., (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health information & libraries journal, 26(2), pp.91-108.
11.
HillM.BarrettA.ChoolaniM.LewisC.FisherJ.ChittyL.S., (2017). Has noninvasive prenatal testing impacted termination of pregnancy and live birth rates of infants with Down syndrome?Prenatal diagnosis, 37(13), pp.1281-1290.
12.
HongQNPluyePFàbreguesSBartlettGBoardmanFCargoMDagenaisPGagnonM-PGriffithsFNicolauBO’CathainARousseauM-CVedelI. (2018). Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Registration of Copyright (#1148552), Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Industry Canada.
13.
HowB.SmidtA.WilsonN.J.BartonR.ValentinC., (2019). ‘We would have missed out so much had we terminated’: What fathers of a child with down syndrome think about current non-invasive prenatal testing for down syndrome. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 23(3), pp.290-309.
14.
HurfordE.HawkinsA.HudginsL.TaylorJ., (2013). The decision to continue a pregnancy affected by Down syndrome: timing of decision and satisfaction with receiving a prenatal diagnosis. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 22(5), pp.587-593.
15.
IltisA.S., (2016). Prenatal screening and prenatal diagnosis: contemporary practices in light of the past. Journal of Medical Ethics, 42(6), pp.334-339.
16.
InglisA.HippmanC.AustinJ.C., (2012). Prenatal testing for Down syndrome: the perspectives of parents of individuals with Down syndrome. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 158(4), pp.743-750.
17.
KelloggG.SlatteryL.HudginsL.OrmondK., (2014). Attitudes of mothers of children with down syndrome towards noninvasive prenatal testing. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 23(5), pp.805-813.
JainR.ThomasmaD.C.RagasR., (2002). Down syndrome: still a social stigma. American Journal of Perinatology, 19(02), pp.099-108.
20.
LouS.LantherM.R.HagenstjerneN.PetersenO.B.VogelI., (2020). “This is the child we were given”: A qualitative study of Danish parents’ experiences of a prenatal Down syndrome diagnosis and their decision to continue the pregnancy. Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare, 23, p.100480.
21.
MansfieldC.HopferS.MarteauT.M., (1999). Termination rates after prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, spina bifida, anencephaly, and Turner and Klinefelter syndromes: a systematic literature review. Prenatal Diagnosis: Published in Affiliation With the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis, 19(9), pp.808-812.
22.
NeedhamB.R., (2012). The truth about patient experience: what we can learn from other industries, and how three Ps can improve health outcomes, strengthen brands, and delight customers. Journal of Healthcare Management, 57(4), pp.255-263.
23.
Nelson GoffB.S.SpringerN.FooteL.C.FrantzC.PeakM.TracyC.VehT.BentleyG.E.CrossK.A., (2013). Receiving the initial Down syndrome diagnosis: a comparison of prenatal and postnatal parent group experiences. Mental Retardation, 51(6), pp.446-457.
24.
Nov‐KlaimanT.RazA.E.Hashiloni‐DolevY., (2019). Attitudes of Israeli parents of children with Down syndrome toward non‐invasive prenatal screening and the scope of prenatal testing. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 28(6), pp.1119-1129.
25.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics., (2017). Non-invasive prenatal testing: ethical issues. Nuffield Council on Bioethics 2017.
26.
PageM. J.McKenzieJ. E.BossuytP. M.BoutronI.HoffmannT. C.MulrowC. D.ShamseerL.TetzlaffJ. M.AklE. A.BrennanS. E.ChouR.GlanvilleJ.GrimshawJ. M.HróbjartssonA.LaluM. M.LiT.LoderE. W.Mayo-WilsonE.McDonaldS.MoherD. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews 2021;10:89.
RabbaniS.A.MossaM.S.Al NuaimiG.A.Al KhateriF.A., (2023). Down syndrome: Knowledge and attitudes among future healthcare providers. Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, 18(5), pp.1179-1187.
29.
RaymondM.B.BarberaJ.P.BoudovaS.VinekarK.HorganR.McLarenR.Al-KouatlyH.B., (2023). Implications for prenatal genetic testing in the United States after the reversal of Roe v Wade. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 141(3), pp.445-454.
30.
RogersC., (2012). Client Centered Therapy (New Ed). Hachette UK.
SebireE.RodrigoC.H.BhattacharyaS.BlackM.WoodR.VieiraR., (2024). The implementation and impact of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for Down’s syndrome into antenatal screening programmes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Plos one, 19(5), p.e0298643.
33.
SkirtonH.BarrO., (2007). Influences on uptake of antenatal screening for Down syndrome: a review of the literature. Evidence-Based Midwifery, 5(1), pp.4-10.
34.
SkotkoB.G., (2005). Prenatally diagnosed Down syndrome: mothers who continued their pregnancies evaluate their health care providers. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 192(3), pp.670-677.
35.
TakahashiM.LinhL.K.M SayedA.ImotoA.SatoM.DilaK.A.S.HuyN.T.MojiK., (2022). Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) implementation in Japan: a comparison with the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Sweden, and Taiwan. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(24), p.16404.
ThomasJHardenA. (2008) Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol.
38.
TymstraT.BosboomJ.BoumanK., (2004). Prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome: experiences of women who decided to continue with the pregnancy. International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine, 16(2), pp.91-96.
39.
Van SchendelR.V.Kater-KuipersA.van Vliet-LachotzkiE.H.DondorpW.J.CornelM.C.HennemanL., (2017). What do parents of children with Down syndrome think about non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT)?Journal of Genetic Counseling, 26(3), pp.522-531.
