Ferrari Amerigo, Pennestrì Federico, Bonciani Manila, Banfi Giuseppe, Vainieri Milena, Tomaiuolo Rossella
Institute of Management, MeS (Management and Health) Laboratory, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa, Italy.
Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X. 2024 Jul 14;23:100327. doi: 10.1016/j.eurox.2024.100327. eCollection 2024 Sep.
Pregnant women can choose from different prenatal genetic tests throughout their maternity journey. We aim to investigate the clinical, societal, and economic determinants influencing the selection of different options (non-invasive, invasive, or both).
A systematic survey focusing on maternity pathways was launched by the Region of Tuscany, Italy, to collect data on pregnant women's experience, outcomes and satisfaction levels. Drawing from this survey, we retrospectively analyzed data on women who filled out the second-trimester questionnaire between March 2019 and February 2023 (n = 27,337), providing complete data on relevant variables. Logistic regression models were applied to identify the factors contributing to a higher likelihood of opting for non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and invasive testing.
Among the participants, 42.7 % chose only NIPT, 3.8 % opted for invasive tests exclusively, 1.3 % underwent both tests, and 52.2 % did not pursue any genetic testing. NIPT was more often chosen by older, Italian, highly educated, nulliparous women, who perceived better health, were employed (versus unemployed), had higher economic status, planned pregnancy, received hospital-based care (versus counseling center), under gynecologist supervision (versus midwife), not opted for combined testing and received pregnancy vaccinations. Conversely, invasive testing was more prevalent among older women but less common among those who were nulliparous, had Italian nationality, and had a perceived better health status. This group also tended to experience unplanned and high-risk pregnancy, did not take folate during pregnancy, received public hospital-based assistance, less frequently chose combined tests or NIPT, and had frequent delays in examinations.
Various factors beyond clinical considerations influence the selection of a prenatal test. Therefore, NIPT pathways should include balanced, high-quality information about benefits and limitations, ensuring laboratory specialists' active and integrated involvement in decision-making.
孕妇在整个孕期可以选择不同的产前基因检测。我们旨在调查影响不同检测选项(非侵入性、侵入性或两者皆选)选择的临床、社会和经济决定因素。
意大利托斯卡纳地区发起了一项针对孕产途径的系统调查,以收集有关孕妇经历、结果和满意度的数据。基于这项调查,我们回顾性分析了2019年3月至2023年2月期间填写孕中期问卷的女性数据(n = 27337),这些数据提供了相关变量的完整信息。应用逻辑回归模型来确定更有可能选择非侵入性产前检测(NIPT)和侵入性检测的因素。
在参与者中,42.7%仅选择了NIPT,3.8%仅选择了侵入性检测,1.3%同时接受了两种检测,52.2%未进行任何基因检测。年龄较大、为意大利人、受过高等教育、未生育的女性更常选择NIPT,她们认为自己健康状况较好、有工作(相对于无工作)、经济状况较高、计划内怀孕、接受医院护理(相对于咨询中心)、在妇科医生监督下(相对于助产士)、未选择联合检测且接种了孕期疫苗。相反,侵入性检测在年龄较大的女性中更为普遍,但在未生育、具有意大利国籍且认为健康状况较好的女性中不太常见。这组女性还往往经历意外和高危妊娠,孕期未服用叶酸,接受公立医院的援助,较少选择联合检测或NIPT,且检查经常延迟。
除了临床考虑因素外,还有多种因素会影响产前检测的选择。因此,NIPT途径应包括关于益处和局限性的平衡、高质量信息,确保实验室专家积极且全面地参与决策。