Since its introduction in 2011, noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has spread rapidly around the world. It carries numerous benefits but also raises challenges, often related to sociocultural, legal, and economic contexts. This article describes the implementation of NIPT in nine countries, each with its own unique characteristics: Australia, Canada, China and Hong Kong, India, Israel, Lebanon, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Themes covered for each country include the structure of the healthcare system, how NIPT is offered, counseling needs and resources, and cultural and legal context regarding disability and pregnancytermination. Some common issues emerge, including cost as a barrier to equitable access, the complexity of decision-making about public funding, and a shortage of appropriate resources that promote informed choice. Conversely, sociocultural values that underlie the use of NIPT vary greatly among countries. The issues described will become even more challenging as NIPT evolves from a second-tier to a first-tier screening test with expanded use.

Available evidence suggests that improvements in genetics education are needed to prepare primary care providers for the impact of ongoing rapid advances in genomics. Postgraduate (physician training) and master (midwifery training) programmes in primary care and public health are failing to meet these perceived educational needs. The aim of this study was to explore the role of genetics in primary care (i.e. family medicine and midwifery care) and the need for education in this area as perceived by primary care providers, patient advocacy groups and clinical genetics professionals.

Objective: The objectives of this study were (1) to explore public experiences, genetic knowledge, expectations of future medical genetic developments, and the attitudes towards the use of genetic information, and (2) to determine whether there are subject characteristics associated with these variables. Methods: Participants (n = 1,308, age ≧25 years) of a Dutch consumer panel were sent a questionnaire, specifically designed for this study. Results: Response was 63% (817/1,308). A minority of respondents reported to know someone with a hereditary disease (34%) or to have used a genetic test (8%). Overall, 57% perceived a lack of genetic knowledge. In multivariate analyses, high self-rated knowledge, younger age, having heard of genetic testing, high educational level, female gender, having children living at home, being a health professional, and familiarity with genetic testing were positively associated with genetic knowledge. Future expectations of the consequences of developments in medical genetics varied between the subjects. The great majority expected great benefits for medical practice such as an increasing use of genetic aspects of disease for diagnosis or prevention. One fifth, mainly older people, anticipated a negative impact of genetic developments on society. The results also show that most people are reserved to share their genetic information with others, especially with regard to the wider public domain (e.g. industry and insurers) and employers. Remarkably, respondents were more willing to share their genetic information with scientific researchers (68%) than with their relatives (54%). Conclusion: This study suggests that although one fifth anticipates negative consequences of genetic developments, the great majority has high expectations about the increasing use of genetics in prevention, diagnosis and treatment of diseases. In developing educational programmes about genetic innovations in medicine, policymakers will have to take into account pre-existing lay knowledge, views and expectations of different groups of citizens towards these developments.

A family history, reflecting genetic susceptibility as well as shared environmental and behavioral factors, is an important risk factor for common chronic multifactorial diseases such as cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes and many cancers.