Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): societal pressure or freedom of choice? A vignette study of Dutch citizens’ attitudes



The introduction of the accurate and procedurally easy non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) raises ethical concerns that public attitudes towards prenatal screening may change, leading to societal pressure to participate in aneuploidy screening. This study examined Dutch citizens’ attitudes towards a pregnant woman’s decision to (1) decline NIPT in the context of two different funding policies and (2) to terminate or continue a pregnancy affected by different disorders. The attitudes of 1096 respondents were assessed with the contrastive vignette method, using two pairs of vignettes about declining NIPT and termination of pregnancy. Most respondents either agreed with a woman’s decision to decline NIPT or were neutral about it, stating that this decision should be made independently by women, and does not warrant judgement by others. Interestingly, funding policies did influence respondents’ attitudes: significantly more respondents disagreed with declining NIPT when it was fully reimbursed. Respondents had similar attitudes to the vignettes on termination and continuation of pregnancy in case of Down’s syndrome. In case of Edwards’ or Patau’s syndrome, however, significantly more respondents disagreed with continuation, citing the severity of the disorder and the child’s best interests. This study demonstrates broad acknowledgement of women’s freedom of choice in Dutch society; a finding that may help to rebut existing concerns about societal pressure for pregnant women to participate in prenatal screening. As the reimbursement policy and the scope of NIPT may influence people’s attitudes and elicit moral judgements, however, maintaining freedom of choice warrants sustained efforts by health professionals and policy makers.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    Faden RR, Beauchamp TL. A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Dondorp W, De Wert G, Bombard Y, Bianchi DW, Bergmann C, Borry P, et al. Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy and beyond: challenges of responsible innovation in prenatal screening. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;23:1438–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Oepkes D, Page-Christiaens GC, Bax CJ, Bekker MN, Bilardo CM, Boon EMJ, et al. Trial by dutch laboratories for evaluation of non-invasive prenatal testing. Part i—clinical impact. Prenat Diagn. 2016;36:1083–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Kater-Kuipers A, de Beaufort ID, Galjaard RH, Bunnik EM. Ethics of routine: a critical analysis of the concept of ‘routinisation’ in prenatal screening. J Med Ethics. 2018;44:626–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Lewis C, Silcock C, Chitty LS. Non-invasive prenatal testing for down’s syndrome: Pregnant women’s views and likely uptake. Public Health Genom. 2013;16:223–32.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    van Schendel RV, Kleinveld JH, Dondorp WJ, Pajkrt E, Timmermans DRM, Holtkamp KCA, et al. Attitudes of pregnant women and male partners towards non-invasive prenatal testing and widening the scope of prenatal screening. Eur J Hum Genet. 2014;22:1345–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Deans Z, Hill M, Chitty LS, Lewis C. Non-invasive prenatal testing for single gene disorders: Exploring the ethics. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013;21:713–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Aune I, Möller A. ‘I want a choice, but i don’t want to decide’—a qualitative study of pregnant women’s experiences regarding early ultrasound risk assessment for chromosomal anomalies. Midwifery. 2012;28:14–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Wilkinson S. Prenatal screening, reproductive choice, and public health. Bioethics. 2015;29:26–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    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 Couns. 2017;26:522–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    R. Lindeman TD, B. Slager. Zwartboek downsyndroom. Alle mensen zijn ongelijk en gelijkwaardig; 2016.

  12. 12.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    How B, Smidt A, Wilson NJ, Barton R, Valentin C. ‘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. J Intellect Disabil. 2019;23:290–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Johnston J, Farrell RM, Parens E. Supporting women’s autonomy in prenatal testing. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:505–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Asch SE. Opinions and social pressure. Sci Am. 1955;193:31–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Moussaïd M, Kämmer JE, Analytis PP, Neth H. Social influence and the collective dynamics of opinion formation. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e78433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Jaques AM, Bell RJ, Watson L, Halliday JL. People who influence women’s decisions and preferred sources of information about prenatal testing for birth defects. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2004;44:233–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Bakkeren IM, Kater‐Kuipers A, Bunnik EM, Go AT, Tibben A, de Beaufort ID, et al. Implementing non‐invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in the netherlands: An interview study exploring opinions about and experiences with societal pressure, reimbursement, and an expanding scope. J Genet Couns. 2019;29:112–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Burstin K, Doughtie EB, Raphaeli A. Contrastive vignette technique: an indirect methodology designed to address reactive social attitude measurement. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1980;10:147–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Motivaction International. Motivaction research and strategy; 2018

  21. 21.

    Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992;112:155.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Guon J, Wilfond BS, Farlow B, Brazg T, Janvier A. Our children are not a diagnosis: The experience of parents who continue their pregnancy after a prenatal diagnosis of trisomy 13 or 18. Am J Med Genet Part A. 2014;164:308–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Birko S, Ravitsky V, Dupras C, Le Clerc-Blain J, Lemoine M-E, Affdal AO, et al. The value of non-invasive prenatal testing: preferences of canadian pregnant women, their partners, and health professionals regarding nipt use and access. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19:22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    García E, Timmermans DRM, Van Leeuwen E. Rethinking autonomy in the context of prenatal screening decision-making. Prenat Diagn. 2008;28:115–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Crombag N, Schielen PCJI, Hukkelhoven CW, Iedema R, Bensing JM, Visser GH, et al. Determinants of first trimester combined test participation within the central region of the netherlands. Prenat Diagn. 2015;35:486–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


This study is a result of a research project ‘Towards an ethically robust scope of NIPT’ which was funded by ZonMw, dossier number 70-73000-98-116.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adriana Kater-Kuipers.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kater-Kuipers, A., Bakkeren, I.M., Riedijk, S.R. et al. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): societal pressure or freedom of choice? A vignette study of Dutch citizens’ attitudes. Eur J Hum Genet (2020).

Download citation