{"title":"Attitudes About NIPT Routinisation: A Report from a Qualitative Study of 20 UK Healthcare Professionals'.","authors":"Peter D Young","doi":"10.1007/s10728-025-00513-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>All healthcare professionals (HCPs) have responsibilities to provide information to patients according to the duties found within UK decision-making guidance and with regards to theory about the doctor-patient relationship. While routinisation can be understood in a number of different ways, this paper is concerned with how routines might negatively affect patients in the decision-making process. Therefore, in this manuscript, medical decision making is understood as problematically routine when a medical test or procedure is framed as a standard one and-given the way options are presented-it is implied that someone can decide to use that test or treatment without being given sufficient opportunities to think through their choices. Routinisation, when understood in this way, can affect the quality and amount of information provided to patients and the ways in which patients reflect upon their choices when making decisions. With the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) into the UK healthcare system, bioethicists have questioned whether this new technology will be routinised and what the implications of routinisation on the decision-making process might be. While there have been numerous studies investigating the views and attitudes of pregnant women who use NIPT, there are fewer studies that look at the views and attitudes of healthcare professionals (HCPs). This study interviewed 20 UK-based HCPs who either offer NIPT or counselled pregnant women on the use of NIPT. One important finding was that many HCPs held the attitude that the NIPT decision-making process had become routine, however there was disagreement about whether routine NIPT was problematic or not. This study provides insights about the context that surrounds decision making for NIPT, and it raises important questions about how NIPT routinisation might be evaluated.</p>","PeriodicalId":46740,"journal":{"name":"Health Care Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Care Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-025-00513-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
All healthcare professionals (HCPs) have responsibilities to provide information to patients according to the duties found within UK decision-making guidance and with regards to theory about the doctor-patient relationship. While routinisation can be understood in a number of different ways, this paper is concerned with how routines might negatively affect patients in the decision-making process. Therefore, in this manuscript, medical decision making is understood as problematically routine when a medical test or procedure is framed as a standard one and-given the way options are presented-it is implied that someone can decide to use that test or treatment without being given sufficient opportunities to think through their choices. Routinisation, when understood in this way, can affect the quality and amount of information provided to patients and the ways in which patients reflect upon their choices when making decisions. With the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) into the UK healthcare system, bioethicists have questioned whether this new technology will be routinised and what the implications of routinisation on the decision-making process might be. While there have been numerous studies investigating the views and attitudes of pregnant women who use NIPT, there are fewer studies that look at the views and attitudes of healthcare professionals (HCPs). This study interviewed 20 UK-based HCPs who either offer NIPT or counselled pregnant women on the use of NIPT. One important finding was that many HCPs held the attitude that the NIPT decision-making process had become routine, however there was disagreement about whether routine NIPT was problematic or not. This study provides insights about the context that surrounds decision making for NIPT, and it raises important questions about how NIPT routinisation might be evaluated.
期刊介绍:
Health Care Analysis is a journal that promotes dialogue and debate about conceptual and normative issues related to health and health care, including health systems, healthcare provision, health law, public policy and health, professional health practice, health services organization and decision-making, and health-related education at all levels of clinical medicine, public health and global health. Health Care Analysis seeks to support the conversation between philosophy and policy, in particular illustrating the importance of conceptual and normative analysis to health policy, practice and research. As such, papers accepted for publication are likely to analyse philosophical questions related to health, health care or health policy that focus on one or more of the following: aims or ends, theories, frameworks, concepts, principles, values or ideology. All styles of theoretical analysis are welcome providing that they illuminate conceptual or normative issues and encourage debate between those interested in health, philosophy and policy. Papers must be rigorous, but should strive for accessibility – with care being taken to ensure that their arguments and implications are plain to a broad academic and international audience. In addition to purely theoretical papers, papers grounded in empirical research or case-studies are very welcome so long as they explore the conceptual or normative implications of such work. Authors are encouraged, where possible, to have regard to the social contexts of the issues they are discussing, and all authors should ensure that they indicate the ‘real world’ implications of their work. Health Care Analysis publishes contributions from philosophers, lawyers, social scientists, healthcare educators, healthcare professionals and administrators, and other health-related academics and policy analysts.