{"title":"“筛查不应基于支付能力”:澳大利亚医疗保健提供者和消费者对非侵入性产前检测公共资金的看法。","authors":"Cecilia Pynaker, Molly Johnston, Catherine Mills, Katie Vasey, Michelle Taylor-Sands, Hilary Bowman-Smart, Lisa Hui","doi":"10.1111/ajo.13915","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) does not receive any Medicare rebate. This study investigated the views of Australian healthcare providers and consumers on public funding of NIPT.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Two anonymous online, cross-sectional surveys were conducted from September 2022 to January 2023. Surveys targeted maternity healthcare professionals ('providers'), and individuals who had recently conceived a pregnancy ('consumers'). Quantitative data were analysed using χ<sup>2</sup> test. Free-text responses were analysed by inductive content analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Responses from 381 providers and 630 consumers were analysed. The overwhelming majority of providers (96.8%) identified financial cost as a consumer barrier to NIPT access. Public funding for NIPT was supported by 86.4% of providers and 90.4% of consumers, with free-text responses citing equity, clinical, health economic, reproductive autonomy, and ethical justifications. Of the 145 consumers who did not use NIPT in a recent pregnancy, 63.1% rated cost as an 'important/very important' factor in foregoing NIPT. NIPT non-users were younger, had lower household income and education, and were more likely to live in a rural or remote area than consumers who used NIPT.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Maternity healthcare providers and consumers are highly supportive of public funding for NIPT as a first-line screening test on clinical, equity, health economic, and ethical grounds. Our results confirm the presence of significant socioeconomic disparities between NIPT users and non-users, with cost being the most important factor impeding equitable access to best practice in prenatal screening. Further research and advocacy are needed to achieve equitable access to best practice in antenatal care.</p>","PeriodicalId":55429,"journal":{"name":"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"'Screening should not be based on ability to pay': Australian healthcare providers' and consumers' perspectives on public funding for non-invasive prenatal testing.\",\"authors\":\"Cecilia Pynaker, Molly Johnston, Catherine Mills, Katie Vasey, Michelle Taylor-Sands, Hilary Bowman-Smart, Lisa Hui\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ajo.13915\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) does not receive any Medicare rebate. This study investigated the views of Australian healthcare providers and consumers on public funding of NIPT.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Two anonymous online, cross-sectional surveys were conducted from September 2022 to January 2023. Surveys targeted maternity healthcare professionals ('providers'), and individuals who had recently conceived a pregnancy ('consumers'). Quantitative data were analysed using χ<sup>2</sup> test. Free-text responses were analysed by inductive content analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Responses from 381 providers and 630 consumers were analysed. The overwhelming majority of providers (96.8%) identified financial cost as a consumer barrier to NIPT access. Public funding for NIPT was supported by 86.4% of providers and 90.4% of consumers, with free-text responses citing equity, clinical, health economic, reproductive autonomy, and ethical justifications. Of the 145 consumers who did not use NIPT in a recent pregnancy, 63.1% rated cost as an 'important/very important' factor in foregoing NIPT. NIPT non-users were younger, had lower household income and education, and were more likely to live in a rural or remote area than consumers who used NIPT.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Maternity healthcare providers and consumers are highly supportive of public funding for NIPT as a first-line screening test on clinical, equity, health economic, and ethical grounds. Our results confirm the presence of significant socioeconomic disparities between NIPT users and non-users, with cost being the most important factor impeding equitable access to best practice in prenatal screening. Further research and advocacy are needed to achieve equitable access to best practice in antenatal care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55429,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.13915\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.13915","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
'Screening should not be based on ability to pay': Australian healthcare providers' and consumers' perspectives on public funding for non-invasive prenatal testing.
Background: Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) does not receive any Medicare rebate. This study investigated the views of Australian healthcare providers and consumers on public funding of NIPT.
Materials and methods: Two anonymous online, cross-sectional surveys were conducted from September 2022 to January 2023. Surveys targeted maternity healthcare professionals ('providers'), and individuals who had recently conceived a pregnancy ('consumers'). Quantitative data were analysed using χ2 test. Free-text responses were analysed by inductive content analysis.
Results: Responses from 381 providers and 630 consumers were analysed. The overwhelming majority of providers (96.8%) identified financial cost as a consumer barrier to NIPT access. Public funding for NIPT was supported by 86.4% of providers and 90.4% of consumers, with free-text responses citing equity, clinical, health economic, reproductive autonomy, and ethical justifications. Of the 145 consumers who did not use NIPT in a recent pregnancy, 63.1% rated cost as an 'important/very important' factor in foregoing NIPT. NIPT non-users were younger, had lower household income and education, and were more likely to live in a rural or remote area than consumers who used NIPT.
Conclusion: Maternity healthcare providers and consumers are highly supportive of public funding for NIPT as a first-line screening test on clinical, equity, health economic, and ethical grounds. Our results confirm the presence of significant socioeconomic disparities between NIPT users and non-users, with cost being the most important factor impeding equitable access to best practice in prenatal screening. Further research and advocacy are needed to achieve equitable access to best practice in antenatal care.
期刊介绍:
The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (ANZJOG) is an editorially independent publication owned by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG) and the RANZCOG Research foundation. ANZJOG aims to provide a medium for the publication of original contributions to clinical practice and/or research in all fields of obstetrics and gynaecology and related disciplines. Articles are peer reviewed by clinicians or researchers expert in the field of the submitted work. From time to time the journal will also publish printed abstracts from the RANZCOG Annual Scientific Meeting and meetings of relevant special interest groups, where the accepted abstracts have undergone the journals peer review acceptance process.