24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references60

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          Designing and conducting mixed methods research

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            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

            Objective To ‘map’ the current (2004) state of prenatal screening in Europe. Design (i) Survey of country policies and (ii) analysis of data from EUROCAT (European Surveillance of Congenital Anomalies) population-based congenital anomaly registers. Setting Europe. Population Survey of prenatal screening policies in 18 countries and 1.13 million births in 12 countries in 2002–04. Methods (i) Questionnaire on national screening policies and termination of pregnancy for fetal anomaly (TOPFA) laws in 2004. (ii) Analysis of data on prenatal detection and termination for Down's syndrome and neural tube defects (NTDs) using the EUROCAT database. Main outcome measures Existence of national prenatal screening policies, legal gestation limit for TOPFA, prenatal detection and termination rates for Down's syndrome and NTD. Results Ten of the 18 countries had a national country-wide policy for Down's syndrome screening and 14/18 for structural anomaly scanning. Sixty-eight percent of Down's syndrome cases (range 0–95%) were detected prenatally, of which 88% resulted in termination of pregnancy. Eighty-eight percent (range 25–94%) of cases of NTD were prenatally detected, of which 88% resulted in termination. Countries with a first-trimester screening policy had the highest proportion of prenatally diagnosed Down's syndrome cases. Countries with no official national Down's syndrome screening or structural anomaly scan policy had the lowest proportion of prenatally diagnosed Down's syndrome and NTD cases. Six of the 18 countries had a legal gestational age limit for TOPFA, and in two countries, termination of pregnancy was illegal at any gestation. Conclusions There are large differences in screening policies between countries in Europe. These, as well as organisational and cultural factors, are associated with wide country variation in prenatal detection rates for Down's syndrome and NTD. Please cite this paper as: Boyd P, DeVigan C, Khoshnood B, Loane M, Garne E, Dolk H, and the EUROCAT 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;115:689–696.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              "Outing" the researcher: the provenance, process, and practice of reflexivity.

              To increase the integrity and trustworthiness of qualitative research, researchers need to evaluate how intersubjective elements influence data collection and analysis. Reflexivity--where researchers engage in explicit, self-aware analysis of their own role--offers one tool for such evaluation. The process of engaging in reflexive analysis, however, is difficult, and its subjective, ambiguous nature is contested. In the face of challenges, researchers might retreat from engaging in the process. In this article, the author seeks to "out" the researcher's presence by exploring the theory and practice of reflexivity. Examples from research illustrate its problematic potential.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                N.crombag@umcutrecht.nl
                yetvellinga@gmail.com
                santje_kluif@hotmail.com
                L.D.Bryant@leeds.ac.uk
                paward29@fsmail.net
                H.R.Iedema@umcutrecht.nl
                Peter.Schielen@rivm.nl
                j.bensing@nivel.nl
                G.H.A.Visser@umcutrecht.nl
                ann.tabor@rh.regionh.dk
                j.hirst@leeds.ac.uk
                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6963
                25 September 2014
                25 September 2014
                2014
                : 14
                : 1
                : 437
                Affiliations
                [ ]Department of Obstetrics, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Huispost KE 04.123.1, Postbus 85090, 3508 AB Utrecht, The Netherlands
                [ ]Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
                [ ]Leeds Institute of Health sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
                [ ]NHS Fetal Anomaly Screening Programme, Innovation Centre, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
                [ ]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
                [ ]Center for Fetal Medicine, Departmentof Obstetrics and Gynecology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Kragujevac, Denmark
                Article
                3522
                10.1186/1472-6963-14-437
                4263059
                25257793
                e3107d3d-b213-4c0a-acc1-911a42873dd0
                © Crombag et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

                This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 11 March 2014
                : 22 September 2014
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2014

                Health & Social care
                down’s syndrome,antenatal screening,utilization of healthcare,uptake,international comparison

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content106

                Cited by30

                Most referenced authors461