Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Mar 26;227(1):87.e1–87.e13. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.03.047

Table 2:

Characteristics of prenatal care and prior maternal knowledge about cfDNA laboratories

N=160 Control Group (n=80) Intervention Group (n=80) P-value

Discussed with MD/CNM/GC how prenatal genetic information can be used, stored, and shared 0.081
 Yes 17 (21.3) 8 (10.0)
 No 63 (78.8) 72 (90.0)

Importance of knowing early on whether pregnancy affected by Down Syndrome 0.371
 Not important 2 (2.5) 0 (--)
 Not really important 1 (1.3) 4 (5.0)
 Somewhat important 22 (27.5) 22 (27.5)
 Very important 55 (68.8) 54 (67.5)

Importance of prenatal care provider’s recommendation (n=79) (n=78) 0.931
 Not important 0 (--) 0 (--)
 Not really important 5 (6.3) 5 (6.4)
 Somewhat important 27 (34.2) 29 (37.2)
 Very important 47 (59.5) 44 (56.4)

Importance of early fetal sex detection 0.291
 Not important 14 (17.5) 12 (15.0)
 Not really important 9 (11.3) 17 (21.3)
 Somewhat important 32 (40.0) 24 (30.0)
 Very important 25 (31.3) 27 (33.8)

Prior to blood draw, patient aware that multiple companies offer cfDNA testing 0.741
 Yes 27 (33.8) 24 (30.0)
 No 53 (66.3) 56 (70.0)

Prior to blood draw, patient researched cfDNA companies (n=27) (n=24) 1.001
 Yes 4 (14.8) 3 (12.5)
 No 23 (85.2) 21 (87.5)

Factors that influenced selection of cfDNA screening company*
 MD/GC/CNM recommendation 73 (91.3) 73 (91.3) 1.001
 Covered by insurance 14 (17.5) 16 (20.0) 0.841
 Test performance 3 (3.8) 4 (5.0) 1.001
 Genetic privacy concerns 1 (1.3) 0 (--) 1.001
 Other 2 (2.5) 3 (3.8) 1.001

Categorical data are (N%);

1

Fisher’s exact test;

*

Check all that apply, does not sum to 100%;

Physician, genetic counselor, certified nurse-midwife.