Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) has already established itself in many European countries (either via public or private institutions) as an option at hand that pregnant women can choose. Based on mother's blood, NIPT claims to “quasi-diagnose” among other things the presence of chromosomal abnormalities caused by an aneuploidy of a chromosome (such as Trisomy 13, 18, and 21). Apart from normative issues concerning the question of “whether to fund NIPT by universal coverage”, NIPT gives rise also to normative issues concerning the question of “how to put NIPT into practice” – the analysis of which is the goal of this study.

Complemented by a hand search, we have conducted a systematic literature search in Ovid MEDLINE and PsycINFO for combinations of NIPT and nudging, NIPT and participation, and NIPT and ethics. Screening was based on content analysis of titles, abstracts, and articles. Writing of the study is in progress.

We identified 83 references of which 39 were included. The main instance of nudging (or also of unintentional choice design) was the use of default bias (the application or reduction of friction cost/hassle factor) that influenced the turnout to NIPT. In establishing NIPT in universal coverage systems, further potential biases identified were the use of authority bias, bandwagon effect, sunk-cost bias, and framing effect. The core ethical challenges with nudging in NIPT derive from the lack of transparency of the methods applied and the challenge of paternalism.

Along the line of accountability for reasonableness, four specific recommendations are suggested as the ethical guidance to using of the tool of nudging in NIPT: (i) decision makers should recognize that some choice design is inevitable, (ii) nudging should be done transparently, (iii) rationales for nudging should be publicly accessible. (iv) revision procedures should be put in place.