Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) Implementation in Japan: A Comparison with the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Sweden, and Taiwan

Mayo Takahashi, Le Khac Linh, Ahmad M. Sayed, Atsuko Imoto, Miho Sato, Kadek Agus Surya Dila, Nguyen Tien Huy and Kazuhiko Moji ()
Additional contact information
Mayo Takahashi: School of Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki 852-8523, Japan
Le Khac Linh: College of Health Sciences, VinUniversity, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam
Ahmad M. Sayed: Department of Organic Chemistry, College of Pharmacy, Al-Azhar University, Cairo 11651, Egypt
Atsuko Imoto: School of Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki 852-8523, Japan
Miho Sato: School of Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki 852-8523, Japan
Kadek Agus Surya Dila: Giri Emas Hospital, Singaraja City 81171, Buleleng, Bali, Indonesia
Nguyen Tien Huy: School of Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki 852-8523, Japan
Kazuhiko Moji: School of Global Humanities and Social Sciences, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki 852-8523, Japan

IJERPH, 2022, vol. 19, issue 24, 1-9

Abstract: Introduction: The Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) guideline was issued and applied in 2013 by the Japanese Medical Association. Since being issued, the NIPT practice in Japan still has some problems related to indication, access, cost coverage and uniformity. Therefore, our study aimed to identify the Japanese challenges of adopting NIPT into prenatal diagnosis by comparing the system and process with other countries. Method: The United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Sweden, and Taiwan were purposefully selected for comparison. All the countries, including Japan, introduced NIPT. The literature and information searches were conducted using PubMed, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, CiNii and Google searching engine. Results: The process of NIPT in Japan was very different from the other countries. Japan is the only country that indicated NIPT for only pregnant women over 35 years old in certificated facilities and did not have a policy regarding providing information on prenatal screening and NIPT to all women. Japan also did not have a policy regarding abortion due to fetal abnormalities. The practice of NIPT guidelines is different between non-certified and certified facilities. NIPT fee was the highest in Japan and was not covered by insurance. Conclusion: Pregnant women in Japan suffered from disparities in information access, economic burden, geographic location, and practice of NIPT guidelines between the certified and the non-certified facilities. Pregnant women-centered prenatal diagnosis policy, including NIPT, should be established in Japan by learning cases from other countries.

Keywords: NIPT; prenatal screening; prenatal diagnosis; perinatal care (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/24/16404/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/24/16404/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:24:p:16404-:d:996070

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().