Explaining variation in Down’s syndrome screening uptake: comparing the Netherlands with England and Denmark using documentary analysis and expert stakeholder interviews

BMC Health Services Research

Janet Hirst⁷  Ann Tabor²  Gerard HA Visser¹  Jozien M Bensing⁵  Peter CJI Schielen⁴  Rita Iedema-Kuiper¹  Pat A Ward⁶  Louise D Bryant⁷  Sandra A Kluijfhout³  Ynke E Vellinga³  Neeltje MTH Crombag¹ 

[1] Department of Obstetrics, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Huispost KE 04.123.1, Postbus 85090, 3508 AB Utrecht, The Netherlands;Center for Fetal Medicine, Departmentof Obstetrics and Gynecology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Denmark;Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands;National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Diagnostic Laboratory for Infectious Diseases and Perinatal Screening Bilthoven, Bilthoven, The Netherlands;The Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands;NHS Fetal Anomaly Screening Programme, Innovation Centre, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK;Leeds Institute of Health sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

关键词: International comparison;    Uptake;    Utilization of healthcare;    Antenatal screening;    Down’s syndrome;   

Others  :  1126156
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6963-14-437

 received in 2014-03-11, accepted in 2014-09-22,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The offer of prenatal Down’s syndrome screening is part of routine antenatal care in most of Europe; however screening uptake varies significantly across countries. Although a decision to accept or reject screening is a personal choice, it is unlikely that the widely differing uptake rates across countries can be explained by variation in individual values alone.

The aim of this study was to compare Down’s syndrome screening policies and programmes in the Netherlands, where uptake is relatively low (<30%) with England and Denmark where uptake is higher (74 and > 90% respectively), in an attempt to explain the observed variation in national uptake rates.

Methods

We used a mixed methods approach with an embedded design: a) documentary analysis and b) expert stakeholder analysis. National central statistical offices and legal documents were studied first to gain insight in demographic characteristics, cultural background, organization and structure of healthcare followed by documentary analysis of primary and secondary sources on relevant documents on DSS policies and programme. To enhance interpretation of these findings we performed in-depth interviews with relevant expert stakeholders.

Results

There were many similarities in the demographics, healthcare systems, government abortion legislation and Down’s syndrome screening policy across the studied countries. However, the additional cost for Down’s syndrome screening over and above standard antenatal care in the Netherlands and an emphasis on the ‘right not to know’ about screening in this country were identified as potential explanations for the ‘low’ uptake rates of Down’s syndrome screening in the Netherlands. The social context and positive framing of the offer at the service delivery level may play a role in the relatively high uptake rates in Denmark.

Conclusions

This paper makes an important contribution to understanding how macro-level demographic, social and healthcare delivery factors may have an impact on national uptake rates for Down’s syndrome screening. It has suggested a number of policy level and system characteristics that may go some way to explaining the relatively low uptake rates of Down’s syndrome screening in the Netherlands when compared to England and Denmark.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Crombag et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Wald NJ, Kennard A, Hackshaw A, McGuire A: Antenatal screening for Down’s syndrome. J Med Screen 1997, 4(4):181-246.
• [2]Roelofsen EE, Kamerbeek LI, Tymstra TJ, Beekhuis JR, Mantingh A: Women’s opinions on the offer and use of maternal serum screening. Prenat Diagn 1993, 13(8):741-747.
• [3]Boyd PA, Devigan C, Khoshnood B, Loane M, Garne E, Dolk H, and the EOROCAT working group: Survey of prenatal screening policies in Europe for structural malformations and chromosome anomalies, and their impact on detection and termination rates for neural tube defects and Down’s syndrome. BJOG 2008, 115(6):689-696.
• [4]Loane M, Morris JK, Addor MC, Arriola L, Budd J, Doray B, Garne E, Gatt M, Haeusler M, Khoshnood B, Klungsøyr Melve K, Latos-Bielenska A, McDonnell B, Mullaney C, O’Mahony M, Queißer-Wahrendorf A, Rankin J, Rissmann A, Rounding C, Salvador J, Tucker D, Wellesley D, Yevtushok L, Dolk H: Twenty-year trends in the prevalence of Down syndrome and other trisomies in Europe: impact of maternal age and prenatal screening. Eur J Hum Genet 2013, 21(1):27-33.
• [5]Ekelund CK, Andersen HJ, Christensen J, Ersbak V, Farlie R, Henriques C, Holmskov A, Jensen LN, Jørgensen FS, Hessellund A, Larsen T, Olesen AW, Pedersen OB, Poulsen H, Ramb J, Skibsted L, Skovbo P, Sommer S, Sperling L, Sundberg K, Juul SV, Zingenberg H, Tabor A: Down’s syndrome risk assessment in Denmark--secondary publication. Ugeskr Laeger 2010, 172(23):1759-1761.
• [6]Ekelund CK, Jorgensen FS, Petersen OB, Sundberg K, Tabor A, Danish Fetal Medicine Research Group: Impact of a new national screening policy for Down’s syndrome in Denmark: population based cohort study. BMJ 2008, 27:337:a2547.
• [7]Ekelund CK, Petersen OB, Skibsted L, Kjaergaard S, Vogel I, Tabor A: Danish Fetal Medicine Research Group: First-trimester screening for trisomy 21 in Denmark: implications for detection and birth rates of trisomy 18 and trisomy 13. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011, 38(2):140-144.
• [8]Siljee JE, Schielen PCJI: Kwaliteitscontrole Parameters van de Nederlandse Down Syndroom Screening Laboratoria 2011. 2012. I/230083/11/LR (Dutch only)
• [9]NHS Fetal Anomaly Screening Programme: NHS fetal anomaly screening programme. Annual Report 2011–2012 2012, 2011:12.
• [10]Green JM, Hewison J, Bekker HL, Bryant LD, Cuckle HS: Psychosocial aspects of genetic screening of pregnant women and newborns: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2004, 8(33):1-109. iii, ix-x
• [11]Dormandy E, Michie S, Hooper R, Marteau TM: Low uptake of prenatal screening for Down syndrome in minority ethnic groups and socially deprived groups: a reflection of women’s attitudes or a failure to facilitate informed choices? Int J Epidemiol 2005, 34(2):346-352.
• [12]Yu J: A systematic review of issues around antenatal screening and prenatal diagnostic testing for genetic disorders: women of Asian origin in western countries. Health Soc Care Community 2012, 20(4):329-346.
• [13]Fransen MP, Wildschut HI, Vogel I, Mackenbach JP, Steegers EA, Essink-Bot ML: Ethnic differences in considerations whether or not to participate in prenatal screening for Down syndrome. Prenat Diagn 2009, 29(13):1262-1269.
• [14]van den Berg M, Timmermans DR, Kleinveld JH, Garcia E, van Vugt JM, van der Wal G: Accepting or declining the offer of prenatal screening for congenital defects: test uptake and women’s reasons. Prenat Diagn 2005, 25(1):84-90.
• [15]Fransen MP, Essink-Bot ML, Oenema A, Mackenbach JP, Steegers EA, Wildschut HI: Ethnic differences in determinants of participation and non-participation in prenatal screening for Down syndrome: a theoretical framework. Prenat Diagn 2007, 27(10):938-950.
• [16]Dormandy E, Marteau TM: Uptake of a prenatal screening test: the role of healthcare professionals’ attitudes towards the test. Prenat Diagn 2004, 24(11):864-868.
• [17]Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL: Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 2nd edition. United States of America: SAGE publishers; 2011.
• [18]Kroneman MW, van der Zee J: Health policy as a fuzzy concept: methodological problems encountered when evaluating health policy reforms in an international perspective. Health Policy 1997, 40(2):139-155.
• [19]Baarda DB, de Goede MPM, van der Meer-Middelburg AGE: Basisboek Open Interviewen. Praktische Handleiding Voor het Voorbereiden en Afnemen van Open Interviews. First ed. Groningen: Stenfert Kroese; 1996. Dutch only
• [20]Bailey KD: Methods of Social Research. 4th edition. New York: Free Press; 2007.
• [21]Ministry of Dutch Civil Code Book 7: Article 449. Medical Treatment Agreements Act. Dutch Translation: Burgerlijk Wetboek 7: Artikel 449. Wet op de Geneeskundige Behandelingsovereenkomst (WGBO).
• [22]Health Council of the Netherlands: Prenatal Screening: Down’s Syndrome, Neural Tube Defects, Routine-Ultrasonography. Dutch Translation: Prenatale Screening op Downsyndroom, Neuralebuisdefecten, Routine-Echoscopie. 2001. 2001/11
• [23]Health Council of the Netherlands: Population Screening Act: Prenatal Screening: Down’s Syndrome and Neural Tube Defects. Dutch Translation: Wet Bevolkingsonderzoek: Prenatale Screening op Downsyndroom en Neuralebuisdefecten. 2007. 2007/05WBO
• [24]Miller FA, Alvarado K: Incorporating documents into qualitative nursing research. J Nurs Scholarsh 2005, 37(4):348-353.
• [25]Scott J: A Matter of Record: Documentary Sources in Social Research. Cambridge, England: Polity Press; 1990.
• [26]Morgan D: Snowball sampling. In The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. 1st edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE publications; 2008:816-817.
• [27]Finlay L: “Outing” the researcher: the provenance, process, and practice of reflexivity. Qual Health Res 2002, 12(4):531-545.
• [28]Hsieh HF, Shannon SE: Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005, 15(9):1277-1288.
• [29]Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport: Social support Act. Dutch translation: Wet maatschappelijke ondersteuning. 2006.
• [30]Danish Parliament: B 43, Parliamentary Resolution on Equalisation of Opportunities and Equal Treatment of Persons With Disabilities, 1993. Danish Translation: Folketingsbeslutning om Ligestilling og Ligebehandling af Handicappede med Andre Borgere.
• [31]Parliament of the United Kingdom: Equality Act 2010. 2010.
• [32]Ministry of Health, Welfare and Spor: Law on General Insurance Against Special Medical Expenses. Dutch Translation: Algemene Wet Bijzondere Ziektekosten (AWBZ). 1967.
• [33]Abortion Act. 1967.
• [34]Gjerris AC, Tabor A, Loft A, Christiansen M, Pinborg A: First trimester prenatal screening among women pregnant after IVF/ICSI. Hum Reprod Update 2012, 18(4):350-359.
• [35]Morris JK: The National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register for England and Wales 2010. Annual Rep 2011.
• [36]National Board of Health Denmark/Sundhedsstyrelsen: Fosterdiagnostik og Risikovurdering, 2003. 2003, 23.
• [37]NHS Fetal Anomaly Screening Programme: Screening for Down’s syndrome: UK NSC Policy Recommendations 2011–2014 Model of Best practice. 2011.
• [38]Wortelboer EJ, Koster MP, Stoutenbeek P, Loeber JG, Visser GH, Schielen PC: Fifteen years of triple tests in The Netherlands; the life cycle of a screening test. Prenat Diagn 2008, 28(10):950-955.
• [39]Wald NJ, Cuckle H, Brock JH, Peto R, Polani PE, Woodford FP: Maternal serum-alpha-fetoprotein measurement in antenatal screening for anencephaly and spina bifida in early pregnancy. Report of U.K. collaborative study on alpha-fetoprotein in relation to neural-tube defects. Lancet 1977, 1(8026):1323-1332.
• [40]Danish Fetal Medicine Database: Foetodatabasen aarsrapport 2011. 2012. http://www.kliniskedatabaser.dk webcite
• [41]Schielen PCJI, Koster MPH, Elvers LH, Loeber JG: Downsyndroom-Kansbepaling met de Eerstetrimester-Combinatietest 2006–2008. 2010. 230083001/2010 (Dutch only)
• [42]Schielen PCJI, Koster MPH, Elvers LH, Loeber JG: Downsyndroom-Kansbepaling met de Eerstetrimester-Combinatietest 2004–2006 (Deels 2007). 2008. 230024002/2008
• [43]NHS Fetal Anomaly Screening Programme: Consent Standards Review Group. NHS Fetal Anomaly Screening Program Consent Standards and Guidance. 2011.
• [44]National Screening Committee UK: National Down’s Syndrome Screening Programme for England, A Handbook for Staff. 2004.
• [45]RIVM-Centraal Orgaan: Patient Leaflet-Informatie Over de Screening op Downsyndroom Information on Screening for Down’s Syndrome. 2011.
• [46]NHS UK National Screening Committee: Screening Tests for you and Your Baby. 2012.
• [47]Komiteen for Sundhedsoplysning: Prenatal Examinations UNDERSØGELSER AF DET UFØDTE BARN -Engelsk. 2005.
• [48]KNOV Koninklijke Nederlandse Organisatie van Verloskundigen/The Royal Dutch Organisation of Midwives: Tarieven 2014. 2014.
• [49]Meijer S, Stemerding D, Hoppe R, Schielen P, Loeber G: Prenatale screening: een (on) getemd maatschappelijk probleem? Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidswetenschappen 2010, 88(8):460. Dutch only
• [50]Kirejczyk M, Rip A, van Berkel D, Oortwijn W, Reuzel R, van den Berg–Schröer I, Toom V: Ruimte voor rechtvaardigheid. Reconstructie van de dynamiek in de processen van besluitvorming over toelating van vier medische interventies: IVF, maternale serumscreening, taxoiden en rivastigmine. 2003. Dutch only
• [51]Seminar W: Debatteren over genetische screeningscriteria. Houten: Prelum; 2005. (Dutch only)
• [52]van El CG, Pieters T, Cornel M: Genetic screening and democracy: lessons from debating genetic screening criteria in the Netherlands. J Community Genet 2012, 3(2):79-89.
• [53]Kaposy C: A disability critique of the new prenatal test for Down syndrome. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 2013, 23(4):299-324.
• [54]Garcia E, Timmermans DR, van Leeuwen E: Rethinking autonomy in the context of prenatal screening decision-making. Prenat Diagn 2008, 28(2):115-120.
• [55]van den Berg M, Timmermans DR, Kleinveld JH, van Eijk JT, Knol DL, van der Wal G, van Vugt JM: Are counsellors’ attitudes influencing pregnant women’s attitudes and decisions on prenatal screening? Prenat Diagn 2007, 27(6):518-524.
• [56]Redelmeier DA, Rozin P, Kahneman D: Understanding patients’ decisions. Cognitive and emotional perspectives. JAMA 1993, 270(1):72-76.
• [57]Abhyankar P, Summers BA, Velikova G, Bekker HL: Framing options as choice or opportunity. Does the frame influence decisions? Med Decis Making 2014, 14(34(5)):567-582.
• [58]Bekker H, Modell M, Denniss G, Silver A, Mathew C, Bobrow M, Marteau T: Uptake of cystic fibrosis testing in primary care: supply push or demand pull? BMJ 1993, 306(6892):1584-1586.
• [59]Carroll FE, Al-Janabi H, Flynn T, Montgomery AA: Women and their partners’ preferences for Down’s syndrome screening tests: a discrete choice experiment. Prenat Diagn 2013, 33:449-456.
• [60]Garrouset C, Le J, Maurin E: The choice of detecting Down syndrome: Does money matter? Health Econ 2011, 20:1073-1089.