Blazing the Trail of Non-Invasive Prenatal Screening Expanded Use: Healthcare Providers' Perspectives.

Abstract

Objective: Advancements in non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS) could significantly alter prenatal screening by expanding the range of genetic conditions screened. This study aims to explore the perspectives of healthcare professionals (HCP) on the expanded use of NIPS and explore specifications for the inclusion of genetic conditions.

Method: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with Canadian HCPs who counsel pregnant individuals about NIPS. The findings were organized around the four ethical pillars of Kater-Kuiper's framework: proportionality (benefits and harms), aim of screening, justice, and societal aspects.

Results: Participants chose to assess the proportionality of NIPS using general terms to describe the additional conditions rather than discussing specific conditions to add. They emphasized the importance of clinical validity as crucial for expanding NIPS and ensuring its utility. Participants believed that the aim of NIPS is to enhance reproductive autonomy, and therefore that screening for late-onset conditions could create ethical tensions between parents and the prospective children. Participants also worried that expanded use of NIPS could impact the quality of counselling provided by HCPs and affect autonomy. Justice considerations include the allocation of resources in prenatal care instead of other areas of healthcare. Societal aspects highlighted the different definitions HCPs used to describe 'life-limiting conditions' that could severely affect the future child's health.

Conclusion: With expanded use of NIPS, clinical validity will vary for each screened condition. Specificity for each condition will influence the quality of consent. HCP estimates that clinical validity, clinical utility, availability of counselling, availability of resources, and societal impacts should be considered when adding genetic conditions to NIPS.