Search

ObjectiveOur objective is to study the association between potentially influential determinants and first-trimester combined test (FCT) uptake rates in the central region of the Netherlands. MethodsData were extracted from the national prenatal screening database Peridos and the Netherlands Perinatal Registry and compared at the level of the health care provider. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analysis was used to determine the effect of determinants (maternal age, parity, socio-economic status (SES), mode of conception, ethnicity and urbanisation) on uptake. ResultsPrenatal screening data were available for 24657 women and overall uptake rate was 25.7%. The strongest association with FCT uptake was found for advanced maternal age ( 2.2; 95% CI [1.7, 2.8]). Grand multiparity had a significantly negative association with FCT uptake ( -4.3; 95% CI [-5.9, -2.7]). Positive associations were found for very high urbanisation ( 0.3; 95% CI [0.1, 0.4]) and high SES ( 0.2; 95% CI [0.0, 0.3]). ConclusionAdvanced maternal age is strongly associated with participation in prenatal testing. The role of age related risk perception should be incorporated in future policy making to support women in informed and autonomous decision making. The negative association of grand multiparity and FCT might be religion based but requires further research. (c) 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 ( 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. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-437) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to analyze differences in characteristics between women who opted for invasive testing after first-trimester combined testing and those who did not. METHOD: Follow-up was performed in 20 215 combined tests conducted between 2007 and 2011 in the central region of the Netherlands. Multivariate logistic regression analysis compared variables (Down syndrome risk estimate, maternal age, previous Down syndrome pregnancy, IVF/ICSI, parity and nuchal translucency measurement) between different groups. RESULTS: 65.4% of women with a Down syndrome risk estimate ≥1 in 200 opted for invasive 49 testing. In a multivariate model, women opting for invasive testing were significantly younger (odds ratio 0.92; 95% confidence interval 0.88-0.95) and less likely to have had IVF/ICSI (odds ratio 0.57; 95% confidence interval 0.37-0.87) than women opting out on invasive testing. In this high risk group, women 36 years make different choices when confronted with similar Down syndrome risk estimates.

Objective To analyze trends in the number and type of invasive procedure, reasons for referral, maternal age and chromosomal abnormalities over a 10-year period and correlate the trends to changes in the national prenatal screening policy. Methods Data from 10 706 invasive prenatal procedures yielding a full karyotype, performed between 2000 and 2009 were extracted from the cytogenetic database in the central region of The Netherlands. Trends were analyzed. Results Over a 10-year period, the number of invasive procedures halved and the percentage of chromosomal abnormalities detected, increased from 5.5 to 9.4%. After 2007, however, 5.7% of karyotypes in women over 36 years were found to be abnormal, versus 18.1% in women below 36 years. In 2009, 71.5% of women over 36 are still referred for invasive prenatal diagnosis on the indication advanced maternal age. Conclusions Changes in prenatal screening policy significantly increased referral after screening and improved the efficacy of invasive prenatal diagnosis. We show the continuing effect of the different policies applied in the past to women below and above the age of 36. To further improve efficacy of invasive prenatal diagnosis, first trimester combination screening should be actively offered to women of all ages. Copyright (C) 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.