Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T15:04:07.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physicians' perception toward non-invasive prenatal testing through the eye of the Rogers' diffusion of innovation theory in China

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2020

Yan Wei ,
Lizheng Shi ,
Jian Ming ,
Luyang He ,
Yan Xu  and
Yingyao Chen Open the ORCID record for Yingyao Chen [Opens in a new window]
Yan Wei
Affiliation:
Key Lab of Health Technology Assessment (Ministry of Health), School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
Lizheng Shi
Affiliation:
School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, USA
Jian Ming
Affiliation:
Key Lab of Health Technology Assessment (Ministry of Health), School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
Luyang He
Affiliation:
Key Lab of Health Technology Assessment (Ministry of Health), School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
Yan Xu
Affiliation:
Key Lab of Health Technology Assessment (Ministry of Health), School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
Yingyao Chen*
Affiliation:
Key Lab of Health Technology Assessment (Ministry of Health), School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
*
Author for correspondence: Yingyao Chen, E-mail: yychen@shmu.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

Physicians' attitudes and adoption behavior toward the delivery of prenatal tests take vital significance for its influence on their professional practice and patient acceptance. This study aimed to identify how physicians have perceived the diffusion of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in China.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted from July 2016 to October 2016 in Shanghai, and Fujian and Sichuan Provinces in China. Physicians working on prenatal screening completed a self-report questionnaire. Following Roger's diffusion of innovation model, multivariable logistic regressions were performed separately for the following key elements of the theory which influence diffusion: physician-perceived attributes of NIPT, communication channels, the nature of the social system, the extent of change agent (who introduces innovations into a society), promotion efforts, and physicians' benefits from adopting NIPT.

Results

Most specialists had a positive attitude (53.2 percent) toward NIPT, whereas 58.9 percent of physicians had already adopted NIPT in their clinical practice. Physician adoption of NIPT was positively associated with the strength of HTA evidence (p = .03), perceived communication frequency with colleagues (p = .04), adoption by other physicians (p = .07), hospital competition (p = .06), hospital teaching status (p = .02), perceived for-profit genetic testing company's promotion (p < .001), and perceived clinical practice skill improvement (p = .02). However, the adoption behavior toward NIPT may be negatively associated with physician-perceived ethical concerns of NIPT (p = .06).

Conclusion

Obstetricians and gynecologists’ positive perceptions facilitate the adoption of NIPT. Combined with cost-effectiveness analysis of prenatal screening methods, health policy makers can promote the adoption of appropriate, cost-effective prenatal screening in pregnant women.

Keywords

Non-invasive prenatal testingAdoptionRoger's modelPrenatal screeningPrenatal diagnosis
Type
Assessment
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , June 2020 , pp. 239 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Zhang, D, Ng, VH, Wang, Z, Zhai, X, Lie, RK. Eugenics and mandatory informed prenatal genetic testing: A unique perspective from China. Dev World Bioeth. 2016;16:107–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malone, FD, Canick, JA, Ball, RH. First-trimester or second trimester screening, or both, for Down's syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:2001–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swanson, A, Sehnert, AJ, Bhatt, S. Non-invasive prenatal testing: Technologies, clinical assays and implementation strategies for women's healthcare practitioners. Curr Genet Med Rep. 2013;1:113–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicolaides, KH. Screening for fetal aneuploidies at 11 to 13 weeks. Prenat Diagn. 2011;31:7–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leung, TY, Chan, LW, Law, LW, Sahota, DS, Fung, TY, Leung, TN et al. First trimester combined screening for trisomy 21 in Hong Kong: Outcome of the first 10,000 cases. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2009;22:300–04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alfirevic, Z, Sundberg, K, Brigham, S. Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling for prenatal diagnosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(3):CD003252.Google ScholarPubMed
Lau, TK, Chan, MK, Lo, PS, Chan, HY, Chan, WS, Koo, TY et al. Clinical utility of noninvasive fetal trisomy (NIFTY) test — early experience. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;25:1856–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Susanne, GO, Sissel, S, Ulla, W, Charlotta, G, Sonja, OL. Pregnant women's responses to information about an increased risk of carrying a baby with Down syndrome. Birth. 2006;33:64–73.Google Scholar
Zhai, J, Cai, W, Li, C, Chen, M, Huang, L, Zhong, M. Survey of attitudes of Chinese perinatologists and obstetricians toward non-invasive prenatal genetic testing. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2016;42:1445–50.Google ScholarPubMed
Yagel, S. Non-invasive prenatal testing: More questions than answers. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;42:369–72.Google ScholarPubMed
Allyse, M, Minear, MA, Berson, E, Sridhar, S, Rote, M, Hung, A et al. Non-invasive prenatal testing: A review of international implementation and challenges. Int J Women's Health. 2015;7:113–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benn, P, Borell, A, Chiu, R, Cuckle, H, Dugoff, L, Faas, B et al. Position statement from the Aneuploidy Screening Committee on behalf of the Board of the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33:622–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jong, A, Dondorp, WJ, de Die-Smulders, CE, Frints, SG, de Wert, GM. Non-invasive prenatal testing: Ethical issues explored. EJHG. 2010;18:272–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deans, Z, Hill, M, Chitty, LS, Lewis, C. Non-invasive prenatal testing for single gene disorders: Exploring the ethics. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013;21:713–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kellogg, G, Slattery, L, Hudgins, L, Ormond, K. Attitudes of mothers of children with down syndrome towards noninvasive prenatal testing. J Genet Couns. 2014;23:805–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Genetics ACoOaGCo. Committee Opinion No. 545: noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:1532–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devers, PL, Cronister, A, Ormond, KE, Facio, F, Brasington, CK, Flodman, P. Noninvasive prenatal testing/noninvasive prenatal diagnosis: The position of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. J Genet Couns. 2013;22:291–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregg, AR, Gross, SJ, Best, RG, Monaghan, KG, Bajaj, K, Skotko, BG et al. ACMG Statement on noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy. Genet Med. 2013;15:395–98.Google ScholarPubMed
Douglas Wilson, R, Langlois, S, Brock, J-A. Current status in noninvasive prenatal detection of Down syndrome, trisomy 18, and trisomy 13 using cell-free DNA in maternal plasma. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2013;35:177–83.Google Scholar
Anon. Position Statement from the Italian College of Fetal Maternal Medicine: Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) by maternal plasma DNA sequencing. J Prenat Med. 2013;7:19–20.Google Scholar
Levy, V. Protective steering: A grounded theory study of the processes by which midwives facilitate informed choices during pregnancy. J Adv Nurs. 1999;29:104–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, G. Nondirectiveness in prenatal genetics: Patients read between the lines. Nurs Ethics. 1999;6:126–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Sullivan, CT. The adoption of drug-eluting cardiac stent technology: An application of Roger's model. Ann Arbor: The University of Iowa, 2008.Google Scholar
Sayres, LC, Allyse, M, Norton, ME, Cho, MK. Cell-free fetal DNA testing: A pilot study of obstetric healthcare provider attitudes toward clinical implementation. Prenat Diagn. 2011;31:1070–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, L, Hewi, JD, Green, J. Attitudes towards prenatal diagnosis and termination in women who have a sibling with Down's syndrome. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2005;23:181–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, CAP, Farsides, B. Too many choices? Hospital and community staff reflect on the future of prenatal screening. Soc Sci Med. 2002;55:743–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelijns, AC, Dawkins, HV. Adopting new medical technology. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Escarce, JJ. Externalities in hospitals and physician adoption of a new surgical technology: An exploratory analysis. J Health Econ. 1996;15:715–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Sullivan, CT. The adoption of drug-eluting stent technology: an application of Rogers’ model. University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Mansfield, E. The economics of technological change. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1968.Google Scholar
Russell, LB. Technology in hospitals: Medical advances and their diffusion. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castle, NG. Innovation in nursing homes: Which facilities are the early adopters. The Gerontologist. 2001;2:167–72.Google Scholar
van Schendel, RV, Kater-Kuipers, A, van Vliet-Lachotzki, EH, Dondorp, WJ, Cornel, MC, Henneman, L. What do parents of children with Down syndrome think about Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT)? J Genet Counsel. 2017;26:522–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farrelly, E, Cho, MK, Erby, L, Roter, D, Stenzel, A, Ormond, KE. Genetic counselors and prenatal testing: Where is the discussion about disability? J Genet Couns. 2012;21:814–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allyse, MA, Sayres, LC, Havard, M. Best ethical practices for clinicians and laboratories in the provision of noninvasive prenatal testing. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33:656–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chitayat, D, Langlois, S, Wilson, RD. Prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy in singleton pregnancies. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2011;33:726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, C, Hill, M, Skirton, H, Chitty, LS. Fetal sex determination using cell-free fetal DNA: Service users’ experiences of and preferences for service delivery. Prenat Diagn. 2012;32:735–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rogers, EM. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Greenhalgh, T, Robert, G, Bate, P, MacFarlane, F, Kyriakidou, O. Diffusion of innovations in health service organizations: A systematic literature review. Maiden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, S, Hösli, I, Lapaire, O. Non-invasive prenatal diagnostics using next generation sequencing: Technical, legal and social challenges. Expert Opin Med Diagn. 2012;6:517–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silcock, C, Liao, LM, Hill, M, Chitty, LS. Will the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing for Down's syndrome undermine informed choice? Health Expectations. 2015;18:1658–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dirksen, CD, Ament, AJH, Go, PMN. Diffusion of six surgical endoscopic procedures in the Netherlands. Stimulating and restraining factors. Health Policy. 1996;37:91–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed