Læknablaðið - 01.06.2016, Blaðsíða 22

282 LÆKNAblaðið 2016/102
Heimildir
1. Kristjánsdóttir H, Kristinsdóttir JD, Aradóttir AB,
Hauksson A, Gottfreðsdóttir H, Reynisson R, et al.
Meðgönguvernd heilbrigðra kvenna í eðlilegri meðgöngu.
Klínískar leiðbeiningar. Landlæknisembættið 2010. land-
laeknir.is/servlet/file/store93/item2548/4407.pdf - sept-
ember 2015.
2. Haraldsdóttir KR, Gottfreðsdóttir H, Geirsson RT.
Fósturlát í kjölfar legvatnsástungu og fylgjusýnitöku á
Íslandi. Læknablaðið 2014; 100: 147-51.
3. Tabor A, Alfirevic Z. Update on procedure-related risks
for prenatal
4. diagnosis techniques. Fetal Diagn Ther 2010; 27: 1-7.
5. Hill M, Fisher J, Chitty LS, Morris S. Women´s and health
professionals preferences for prenatal tests for Down
syndrome: a discrete choice experiment to contrast non-
invasive prenatal diagnosis with current invasive tests.
Genet Med 2012; 14: 905-13.
6. Lo YMD, Corbetta N, Chamberlain PF, Rai V, Sargent IL,
Redman CWG, et al. Presence of fetal DNA in maternal
plasma and serum. Lancet 1997; 350: 485-7.
7. Ashoor G, Syngelaki A, Wagner M, Birdir C, Nicolaides,
KH. Chromosome-selective sequencing of maternal plasma
cell–free DNA for first-trimester detection of trisomy 21
and trisomy 18. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206: 322.e1-5.

8. Bianchi DW, Platt LD, Goldberg JD, Abuhamad AZ,
Sehnert AJ, Rava RP. Genome-wide fetal aneuploidy
detection by maternal plasma DNA sequencing. Obstet
Gynecol 2012; 119: 890-901.
9. Gil M, Quezada M, Revello R, Akolekar R, Nicolaides K.
Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening
for fetal aneuploidies: updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound
Obstet Gynecol 2015; 45: 249-66.
10. Zhou Q, Pan L, Chen S, Chen F, Hwang R, Yang X, et
al. Clinical application of non-invasive prenatal testing
for the detection of trisomies 21, 18, and 13: a hospital
experience. Prenat Diagn 2014; 34: 1061-5.
11. Allyse M, Minear M, Berson E, Sridhar S, Rote M,
Hung A, et al. Non-invasive prenatal testing: a review
of international implementation and challenges. Int J
Womens Health 2015; 7: 113-26.
12. Lewis C, Hill M, Chitty L. Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis
for single gene disorders: experience of patients. Clin
Genet 2014; 85: 336-42.
13. Tischler R, Hudgins L, Blumenfeld YJ, Greely HT,
Ormond, KE. Noninvasive prenatal diagnosis: pregnant
women´s interest and expected uptake. Prenat Diagn
2011; 31: 1292-9.
14. Verweij EJ, Oepkes D, de Vries M, var den Akker ME, van
den Akker ES, de Boer MA. Non-invasive prenatal screen-
ing for trisomy 21: What women want and are willing to
pay. Patient Educ Couns 2013; 93: 641-5.
15. Bishop AJ, Marteau TM, Armstrong D, Chitty LS,
Longworth L, Buxton MJ, et al. Women and health care
professionals‘ preferences for Down‘s syndrome screen-
ing tests: a conjoint analysis study. BJOG 2004; 111: 775-9.
16. de Jong A, Maya IM, van Lith JMM. Prenatal screening:
current practice, new developments, ethical challenges.
Bioethics 2015; 29: 1-8.
17. Kristjánsdóttir H, Steingrímsdóttir Þ, Ólafsdóttir ÓÁ
Björnsdóttir Á, Sigurðsson JÁ. Barneign og heilsa.
Ferilrannsókn meðal íslenskra kvenna frá því snemma
á meðgöngu þar til tveimur árum eftir fæðingu barns.
Ljósmæðrablaðið 2012; 2: 13-21.
18. Mulvey S, Zachariah R, McIlwaine K, Wallace EM. Do
women prefer to have screening tests for Down syndrome
that have the lowest screen-positive rate or the highest
detection rate? Prenat Diagn 2003; 23: 828-32.
19. Kormáksdóttir G. Er munur á þjónustu fyrir verð-
andi foreldra varðandi fósturskimanir eftir búsetu?
Meistaraverkefni í ljósmóðurfræði. Háskóli Íslands 2013.
20. Stefansdottir V, Skirton H, Jonasson K, Hardardottir
H, Jonsson, JJ. Effects of knowledge, education, and
experience on acceptance of first trimester screening for
chromosomal anomalies. Acta Obstet Gynecol 2010; 89:
931-8.
21. Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit prefer-
ences for health care. BMJ 2000; 320: 1530-3.
ENGLISH SUMMARY
Introduction: Prenatal screening in early pregnancy is offered to all
women in Iceland. In the case of an increased risk, invasive diagnostic
test with 1% risk of fetal loss is offered. Recent developments include an
exploration of a cell free fetal DNA in maternal plasma. The aim of this
study was to explore factors that are of importance to pregnant women
and professionals in fetal diagnosis.
Material and methods: A questionnaire incorporating a discrete choice
experimental design was used. The population included all pregnant
women attending antenatal care in the capital area from June to Novem-
ber 2014 and all health professionals provide prenatal care in Iceland.
We included all health professionals who provide prenatal care and a
convenience sample of 300 pregnant women attending primary health
clinics, who were more than 20 weeks pregnant, had declined screening
or had low risk result.
Results: Overall pregnant women and professionals prefer a test
which is accurate and safe, performed early in pregnancy and provides
thorough information. In comparison with the health professionals, who
responded to the questionnaire (20,8%, 61/293), the pregnant women
placed greater emphasis on test safety and comprehensive information
but less on accuracy and early testing.
Conclusion: Similar results can be found in other studies but it is of
importance to gain knowledge of pregnant women´s and professionals
views before a new method in screening contexts is implimented in
Iceland. Good counseling is of importance to ensure that women under-
stand all aspects of the technique which increases informed choices.
Key words: non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT); Down syndrome;
discrete choice experiment; women’s preferences; health professionals’
attitudes.
Women´s preferences for prenatal tests A discrete choice experiment to
contrast noninvasive prenatal testing with current invasive tests
Sigrún Ingvarsdóttir, Vigdís Stefánsdóttir, Helga Gottfreðsdóttir
Key words: non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), Down syndrome; discrete choice experiment; womens’ preferences; health professionals’ attitudes.
Correspondence: Sigrún Ingvarsdóttir, sigruing@landspitali.is
R A N N S Ó K N