Why we succeed and fail in detecting fetal growth restriction: A population-based study.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to explore the association between detection of fetal growth restriction and maternal-, healthcare provider- and organizational factors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A historical, observational, multicentre study. All women who gave birth to a child with a birthweight <2.3rd centile from 1 September 2012 to 31 August 2015 in Zealand, Denmark, were included. The population was identified through the Danish Fetal Medicine Database. Medical charts were reviewed to obtain data regarding maternal characteristics and information on the healthcare professionals. Date of authorization for the midwives and obstetricians involved was extracted from the Danish Health Authorization Registry. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to identify predictors of antenatal detection of fetal growth restriction, and analyses were adjusted for hospital, body mass index, parity, the presence of at least one risk factor and experience of the first midwife, number of midwife visits, number of visits to a doctor, the experience of the consultant midwife or the educational level of the doctor, the number of scans and gaps in continuity of midwife-care. Antenatal detection was defined as an ultrasound estimated fetal weight <2.3rd centile (corresponding to -2 standard deviations) prior to delivery. RESULTS: Among 78 544 pregnancies, 3069 (3.9%) had a fetal growth restriction. Detection occurred in 31% of fetal growth-restricted pregnancies. Clinical experience (defined as years since graduation) of the first consultation midwife was positively associated with detection, with a hazard ratio [HR] of 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.28), for every 10 years of additional experience. The hazard of detection increased with the number of midwife consultations (HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.05-1.26) and with multiparity (HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.03-1.58). After adjusting for all covariates, an unexplained difference between hospitals (P = .01) remained. CONCLUSIONS: The low-risk nullipara may constitute an overlooked group of women at increased risk of antenatal non-detection of fetal growth restriction. Being screened by experienced midwives during early pregnancy and having access to multiple midwife consultations may improve future diagnosis.

Lessons learned from a prenatal diagnosis program for thalassemia in Thailand.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the outcome of a thalassemia screening program at community hospitals by determining the proportion of at-risk couples able to obtain a prenatal diagnosis (PND) in relation to gestational age (GA). METHODS: We accessed records documenting prenatal screening for thalassemia in lower northern Thailand between January 2014 and December 2016. The proportion of at-risk pregnancies able to obtain a PND was determined and median GAs at the time of at-risk notification were compared. Reasons for failures to obtain PNDs were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 4633 screen-positive couples, 259 (5.6%) were identified as at-risk while 23 were excluded due to unconfirmed outcomes. Forty-one declined a PND and were excluded from the final calculations. Of the 195 remaining couples, 140 (71.8%) obtained a PND. Their median GA at the time of at-risk notification was 12.4 (5.6-29.1) weeks, which was earlier than the median GA of 17.7 (6.9-34.6) weeks for couples not undergoing PND (P < .001). Risks for various types of thalassemia and GA were associated with the chances of achieving a PND. CONCLUSION: In practice, one quarter of couples identified as at-risk were unable to obtain a PND. Time-influencing factors seem to be a major determinant.

Down syndrome screening information in midwifery practices in the Netherlands: Strategies to integrate biomedical information.

The aim of this qualitative study was to analyse counselling with regard to prenatal screening in midwifery consultations in the Netherlands where a national prenatal screening programme has only existed since 2007, after years of social and political debates. The methodology is based on in situ observations of 25 counselling consultations in four midwifery practices in two main cities in the Netherlands. The results of this study show that, since midwives are obliged to offer information on Down syndrome screening to all pregnant women (2007), they have to deal with the communication of medical screening information using biostatistical concepts to explain risks, calculations, probabilities and chromosomal anomalies. In order to avoid the risk of medicalization of their consultation, midwives develop strategies that allow them to integrate this new biomedical discourse while maintaining their low medicalized approach of midwife-led care. One of their main strategies is to switch from 'alarming' biomedical messages to 'reassuring words' in order to manage the anxiety induced by the information and to keep the control over their low medicalized consultation. They also tend to distance themselves from the obligation to talk about screening. The way midwives handle these counselling consultations allows them to respect their obligation to propose information, and to remain faithful to their struggle to protect the natural process of pregnancy as well as their professional autonomy.

Antenatal GBS screening: an Australian perspective.

Women in Australia are offered a variety of options for screening and treatment of group B streptococcus (GBS), depending on which health service they are engaged with, including a risk-based approach or universal screening. The difficulty for midwives when addressing the evidence supporting these differing policies is that there is no unified national policy on GBS screening in Australia. Furthermore, the Australian population is a discerning one, questioning the implications of procedures and exploring all options. This paper discusses the varying evidence and limitations that midwives need to be aware of in order to inform women, empower their decision-making and provide holistic woman-centred care.

Effect of enhanced information, values clarification, and removal of financial barriers on use of prenatal genetic testing: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Prenatal genetic testing guidelines recommend providing patients with detailed information to allow informed, preference-based screening and diagnostic testing decisions. The effect of implementing these guidelines is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the effect of a decision-support guide and elimination of financial barriers to testing on use of prenatal genetic testing and decision making among pregnant women of varying literacy and numeracy levels. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized trial conducted from 2010-2013 at prenatal clinics at 3 county hospitals, 1 community clinic, 1 academic center, and 3 medical centers of an integrated health care delivery system in the San Francisco Bay area. Participants were English- or Spanish-speaking women who had not yet undergone screening or diagnostic testing and remained pregnant at 11 weeks' gestation (n = 710). INTERVENTIONS: A computerized, interactive decision-support guide and access to prenatal testing with no out-of-pocket expense (n = 357) or usual care as per current guidelines (n = 353). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was invasive diagnostic test use, obtained via medical record review. Secondary outcomes included testing strategy undergone, and knowledge about testing, risk comprehension, and decisional conflict and regret at 24 to 36 weeks' gestation. RESULTS: Women randomized to the intervention group, compared with those randomized to the control group, were less likely to have invasive diagnostic testing (5.9% vs 12.3%; odds ratio [OR], 0.45 [95% CI, 0.25-0.80]) and more likely to forgo testing altogether (25.6% vs 20.4%; OR, 3.30 [95% CI, 1.43-7.64], reference group screening followed by invasive testing). Women randomized to the intervention group also had higher knowledge scores (9.4 vs 8.6 on a 15-point scale; mean group difference, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.34-1.31]) and were more likely to correctly estimate the amniocentesis-related miscarriage risk (73.8% vs 59.0%; OR, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.39-2.75]) and their estimated age-adjusted chance of carrying a fetus with trisomy 21 (58.7% vs 46.1%; OR, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.22-2.28]). Significant differences did not emerge in decisional conflict or regret. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Full implementation of prenatal testing guidelines using a computerized, interactive decision-support guide in the absence of financial barriers to testing resulted in less test use and more informed choices. If validated in additional populations, this approach may result in more informed and preference-based prenatal testing decision making and fewer women undergoing testing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00505596.

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

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.

Are midwifery clients in Ontario making informed choices about prenatal screening?

BACKGROUND: Informed choice is often lacking in women's decisions about prenatal screening. AIM: The aim of this study is to evaluate how well midwives in Ontario, Canada are facilitating informed choice in this area. METHODS: An Internet-based survey was used to investigate 171 midwifery clients' knowledge, attitude towards and experience of prenatal genetic screening tests, and to determine the proportion of study participants who made an informed choice about prenatal screening. FINDINGS: All participants demonstrated adequate knowledge of prenatal screening. The vast majority (93.0%) of participants made an informed choice. Participants who chose to screen had lower knowledge scores than those who opted out of screening. Client satisfaction rates in regard to care received in this area ranged from 97% to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study suggest that Ontario midwives are effective in conveying information on prenatal genetic screening, contributing to high levels of client knowledge and satisfaction in comparison to similar studies in other jurisdictions.

Effectiveness of earlier antenatal screening for sickle cell disease and thalassaemia in primary care: cluster randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of offering antenatal screening for sickle cell disease and thalassaemia in primary care as a way of facilitating earlier uptake of screening. DESIGN: Partial factorial cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 25 UK general practices from deprived inner city areas. PARTICIPANTS: Anonymised data on all pregnant women attending participating practices during a six month period before randomisation and a seven month period after randomisation. This included 1708 eligible women. INTERVENTION: Practices were randomised to three groups for seven months: parallel testing in general practice (tests for sickle cell disease and thalassaemia offered to both parents when pregnancy was first reported); sequential testing in general practice (tests offered to mothers when pregnancy was first reported, and subsequently to the partners of women who were found to be carriers); and midwife care (tests offered to mothers at first consultation with a midwife). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome (available for all women) was the proportion of eligible women screened before 10 weeks' (70 days') gestation. Secondary outcomes were an offer of screening to women before 10 weeks' gestation, gestational age at testing, mean interval from first visit to the general practice visit to screening, and women's knowledge of the carrier status of their baby's father before 77 days' (11 weeks') gestation. The study was designed to detect a 20% absolute increase in screening uptake. Cluster level analyses were adjusted for age group, parity, ethnic group, primary care organisation, and number of general practitioners per practice. RESULTS: Data were analysed for 1708 eligible women. In the midwife care arm, 2% (9/441) of women were screened before 10 weeks' gestation compared with 24% (161/677) in the GP parallel testing arm and 28% (167/590) in the GP sequential testing arm. The estimated adjusted difference between the midwife care and GP parallel testing arms was 16.5% (95% confidence interval 7.1% to 25.8%; P=0.002) and between the midwife care and GP sequential testing arms was 27.8% (14.8% to 40.7%; P<0.001). By 26 weeks' gestation the proportion of women screened across the three trial arms was similar (81%). The proportion of women who knew the carrier status of the baby's father by 11 weeks' gestation was 0% (0/441) in the midwife care arm, 2% (13/677) in the GP parallel testing arm (P=0.003), and 1% (3/590) in the GP sequential testing arm (P=0.374). CONCLUSION: Offering antenatal screening for sickle cell disease and thalassaemia as part of consultations for pregnancy confirmation in primary care increases the proportion of women screened before 10 weeks' gestation. Even with intervention, however, only a minority of women were screened before 10 weeks. Additional interventions should be considered to achieve testing early in pregnancy for most women wanting such tests so that couples with affected pregnancies have less time pressure to choose options, which may include termination of the pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN00677850.

[Reproductive techniques and concepts of psychosomatic medicine]. / Reproduktive Techniken und Denkansätze der psychosomatischen Medizin.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the expectations of the patients regarding prenatal examination and assisted reproductive treatment. METHODS: The first sample included patients and their partners at the commencement of assisted reproductive treatment. The couples were asked to predict the success of in vitro fertilization on a scale ranging from 0 to 100%. The second sample included pregnant women and their partners prior to prenatal examination (level III). These couples were asked what expectations they had regarding the prenatal examination. RESULTS: On average, 57% of the women and 61% of their partners expected a successful pregnancy in the course of the ongoing reproductive treatment. The expectations at the prenatal examination indicated that both the women and their partners wished, in the first instance, a reassuring outcome and a positive diagnosis of pregnancy. Lower down the scale in third and fourth position were safety and assurance. DISCUSSION: The patients focused their expectations mainly on the technical possibilities of the reproductive techniques. It is therefore necessary in psychosomatic medicine to introduce personal concepts for discussion in order to avoid being subordinated to prevalent facts.

Uptake of invasive testing following a positive triple test for Down's syndrome. Are midwives different counsellors compared with obstetricians?

A review of the uptake rate of diagnostic tests following a positive triple test was undertaken in the two maternity units of the Hull and East Yorkshire NHS Trust. In one unit, midwives were actively involved in counselling and in the other, counselling was performed by Consultant obstetricians. During the study period, there were 721 (7.1% positive rate) positive triple tests. Of these, 212 (29.4%) and 509 (70.6%) were counselled by midwives and Consultant obstetricians, respectively. There was no significant difference in uptake of amniocenteses or chorionic villous sampling with respect to the counsellor with an uptake of 60.4% in the midwife counselled group compared with 67.6% in the Consultant counselled group (p = NS). We believe the determinants of the uptake rate of a diagnostic test are patient centred if adequate counselling is provided. Midwives will continue to play a role in counselling and should be encouraged to do so to reduce the burden on obstetricians.

Women's and health professionals' preferences for prenatal testing for Down syndrome in Australia.

AIM: To describe and compare women's and health professionals' preferences for prenatal screening tests for Down syndrome. DESIGN: Cross-sectional questionnaire survey. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Women (n = 322) attending for a glucose challenge test at 26 weeks gestation and health professionals (266 midwives and 34 obstetricians) at the Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, between 13 December 2002 and 30 April 2003. OUTCOME MEASURES: The relative value participants attach to attributes of Down syndrome screening tests as determined by conjoint analysis and ranking scales. RESULTS: Women and health professionals shared similar relative values regarding the importance of detection rate of screening tests, according to coefficients from conjoint analysis models. However, health professionals placed higher relative values on timing of prenatal tests and risk associated with the subsequent diagnostic test than did women. Comparison of coefficients suggests that, compared with health professionals, women would wait longer and accept a greater decrease in detection rate for a test if it was safer. Using the more traditional ranking scale, the safest test was ranked first by 56% of women while 47% of health professionals ranked a test with the highest detection rate first. Equal proportions ( approximately 10%) in both groups ranked the earliest test first. CONCLUSION: There is a general agreement between pregnant women and health professionals regarding the relative importance they attach to different attributes of a test. However, health professionals appeared to favour earlier timing of tests while women placed greater emphasis on safety. Utilising two different measures of preference demonstrated the complexity of decision-making.

A comparison of Australian and UK obstetricians' and midwives' preferences for screening tests for Down syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To establish and compare obstetricians' and midwives' preferences for hypothetical prenatal screening tests for Down syndrome. METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey was completed by 296 obstetricians and midwives at two teaching hospitals: one in Melbourne, Australia (n = 175), and one in London, UK (n = 94). Conjoint analysis was undertaken using random effects probit regression. RESULTS: No significant differences were seen in any measurements when comparing obstetricians in Australia and the UK or midwives in Australia and the UK. Obstetricians and midwives shared similar relative values regarding the importance of the detection rate of the screening tests. However, obstetricians placed higher relative values on both timing of prenatal tests and risk associated with the subsequent diagnostic test than did midwives when considering optimal tests to offer women. Marginal rates of substitution suggest that, compared with midwives, obstetricians would wait longer and accept a greater decrease in detection rate for a test if it was safer. Younger midwives placed higher value on both detection rate and safety of prenatal tests than older midwives. Female obstetricians placed higher value on the timing of a test than male obstetricians. CONCLUSION: Obstetricians in Australia and UK placed almost identical importance on test attributes, as did the midwives in the two countries. However, different attitudes towards tests were seen between obstetricians and midwives.

Uptake of a prenatal screening test: the role of healthcare professionals' attitudes towards the test.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between healthcare professionals' attitudes towards prenatal Down syndrome screening and screening uptake in the women who consult them. METHODS: The attitudes of 71 midwives and 18 obstetricians towards Down syndrome screening and screening uptake in the women who consulted them were assessed at two UK hospitals where uptake rates of Down syndrome screening differed (26 vs 61%). RESULTS: Healthcare professionals based at the hospital with higher screening uptake had more positive attitudes towards Down syndrome screening than healthcare professionals based at the hospital with lower screening uptake (19 vs 17, p = 0.03). Pooling across hospitals, obstetricians had more positive attitudes than midwives (20 vs 17, p = 0.004). In a sub-group of women who discussed screening with one healthcare professional, there was no significant association between individual healthcare professionals' attitudes and screening uptake (Spearman correlation coefficient = 0.13, p = 0.51). CONCLUSION: In this study powered to detect a correlation of 0.5 and over (i.e. a large effect), healthcare professionals' attitudes towards screening were unrelated to uptake of screening in the women consulting them. It remains to be determined if a smaller effect exists. The observed association between healthcare professionals' attitudes and uptake rates by hospitals raises the question of whether healthcare professionals' attitudes might influence systems of care, not just communication with pregnant women.

Socioeconomic barriers to informed decisionmaking regarding maternal serum screening for down syndrome: results of the French National Perinatal Survey of 1998.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate socioeconomic disparities in serum screening for Down syndrome and assess whether such disparities are more likely to reflect limits in access or information or, rather, informed decisionmaking. METHODS: A nationally representative sample of 12 869 French women completed interviews after giving birth. RESULTS: We found substantial disparities in the likelihood of (1) women not being offered screening, (2) screening not being offered as a result of late prenatal care, and (3) women not knowing whether or not they had undergone screening. Except in the case of nationality, there was essentially no evidence of differences in refusal of testing. CONCLUSIONS: Rather than representing informed decisionmaking, socioeconomic disparities in screening for Down syndrome are mostly due to limits in access or to information.

Understanding why women decline HIV testing.

BACKGROUND: The Department of Health (DH) set a target for HIV testing--uptake should be at least 90% by 31 December 2002 (Department of midwife Health, 2000), i the number of 80% decrease in n order to see a babies born with HIV (Tookey et al, 2002). As an exercise to measure Newham Healthcare Trust against this standard and review the antenatal care HIV-positive women received, the maternity unit undertook an audit. One in 160 pregnant women receiving antenatal care in the London Borough of Newham are HIV positive (Communicable Disease Screening Centre, 2003), according to the HIV anonymous screening programme, however the rate of transmission to the baby is virtually zero, when babies were followed up at birth, six months and one year Healthcare NH S Trust, 2003). Newham's HIV testing uptake ranges from 80% to 90% (with an average of 88%). A strategy for improving the uptake has been to explore why the 10% to 20% of women decline testing; hence the Trust underwent an audit to explore the reasons women gave when they declined testing. Audit findings Some 2138 forms were returned over a seven-month period, of which 328 (15%) were from women who declined HIV testing. Uptake within that period ranged from 74% to 90%. Ten new positive women were identified. The HIV-specialist midwife carries a caseload and is aware of all positive women, therefore was able to identify the new cases. The reasons given for decline ranged from cultural and religious beliefs to those who said they were not at risk. Practice implications Where women are aware of their HIV status, services can be put in place to support them through their pregnancy and life as a positive parent, equally important is the ability to minimise the risk of transmission to babies, therefore it is vital that women understand the purpose of early diagnosis through testing and its consequences. Midwives have a vital role to play in ensuring pregnant women receive adequate information to form their decision. If a woman chooses not to have the test, midwives should explore her reasons without prejudice. It is also recommended that women who decline testing are reoffered the HIV test at their subsequent antenatal visit, allowing them the opportunity to digest the information and discuss it with a partner. The purpose of the audit was to assess how the Trust would meet the DH target (90% uptake), as part of a review of the maternity HIV service.

Prenatal HIV tests. Routine testing or informed choice?

OBJECTIVE: To examine how prenatal care providers responded to a new provincial policy of offering HIV testing to all prenatal patients, and to determine factors associated with self-reported high testing rates. DESIGN: Cross-sectional mailed survey. SETTING: Outpatient practices in three Ontario health-planning regions. PARTICIPANTS: Prenatal care providers: 784 family physicians, 200 obstetricians, and 103 midwives were sent questionnaires and were eligible to participate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported testing of 80% or more prenatal patients ("high testers") and associated practice characteristics, attitudes, and counseling practices. RESULTS: Response rate was 57% (622/1087): 43% of respondents were high testers. Family physicians were most likely and midwives least likely to be high testers. High testers tended to report that they had adequate knowledge of HIV testing, that HIV risk among their patients warranted testing all of them, and that testing should be routine. Encouraging women to test and not providing written information or choice were independently associated with high testing rates. CONCLUSION: Strongest predictors of high prenatal HIV testing rates were attitudes and practices that favoured a routine approach to testing and that placed little emphasis on informed consent.

Decreasing prevalence of neural tube defects in Utah, 1985-2000.

BACKGROUND: The Utah Birth Defect Network, a statewide surveillance program based in the Utah Department of Health, monitors the occurrence of all neural tube defects (NTDs). Retrospectively and prospectively population-based data was utilized to assess the trend in prevalence for NTDs in Utah from 1985-2000. METHODS: The Utah Birth Defect Network (UBDN) has prospectively identified NTDs in Utah since 1994. NTD cases, including meningomyelocele, meningocele, anencephaly (including exencephaly), encephalocele and craniorachischisis, born to women who are residents of Utah at delivery are reviewed by a pediatric geneticist. All NTDs occurring from 1985-1993 were ascertained retrospectively and documented to be a case. NTDs from all pregnancy outcomes are included (live births, stillbirths and pregnancy terminations) during the entire study period. RESULTS: NTDs in Utah have decreased significantly between 1985-2000 and remain at the lowest prevalence over the last three of those years. The most significant decrease was seen from 1993-2000. The downward trend was demonstrable for anencephaly and meningomyelocele but not for encephalocele. The proportion of NTDs diagnosed prenatally, as well as those pregnancies terminated after prenatal diagnosis have remained constant, without any evidence of an increasing trend since 1990. However, the proportion of pregnancy terminations occurring prior to twenty weeks gestation has increased significantly since 1990. CONCLUSIONS: The reason for the observed decrease is not known but is likely the result of simultaneous prevention activities locally and nationally, the Utah population's propensity for vitamin and supplement consumption, and recent food fortification. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended in 1992 that all women in their childbearing years take folic acid daily. The Utah Folic Acid Educational Campaign targeted all women of childbearing years beginning in 1996 with this message. Additionally, fortification of grains was voluntary from 1996, became mandatory in 1998 at which point NTD prevalence declined to its lowest level. These factors may have collectively contributed to the reduction observed in NTD prevalence within Utah, demonstrating the positive impact of an important public health endeavor.

Offering routine antenatal testing for HIV and hepatitis B in the rural setting of Cornwall.

Before Department of Health directives to offer HIV and hepatitis B (HBV) testing to all pregnant women, there was little such screening in Cornwall. Through a multiagency collaborative approach a new antenatal screening programme for HIV/HBV has been introduced with high uptake in the first year (HIV 92% and HBV 93%). We also report the findings of a questionnaire survey of community midwives who alone offer antenatal HIV/HBV testing in Cornwall.

Uptake and acceptability of antenatal HIV testing: randomised controlled trial of different methods of offering the test.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the uptake and acceptability of different methods of a universal offer of voluntary HIV testing to pregnant women. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial involving four combinations of written and verbal communication, followed by the direct offer of a test. The control group received no information and no direct offer of a test, although testing was available on request. SETTING: Hospital antenatal clinic covering most of the population of the city of Edinburgh. SUBJECTS: 3024 pregnant women booking at the clinic over a 10 month period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Uptake of HIV testing and women's knowledge, satisfaction, and anxiety. RESULTS: Uptake rates were 6% for those in the control group and 35% for those directly offered the test. Neither the style of leaflet nor the length of discussion had an effect on uptake. Significant independent predictors of uptake were a direct test offer; the midwife seen; and being unmarried, previously tested, and younger age. Knowledge of the specific benefits of testing increased with the amount of information given, but neither satisfaction nor anxiety was affected by the type of offer. CONCLUSIONS: The universal offer of HIV testing is not intrusive and is acceptable to pregnant women. A policy of offering the HIV test to all women resulted in higher uptake and did not increase anxiety or dissatisfaction. Uptake depends more on the midwife than the method of offering the test. Low uptake rates and inadequate detection of HIV infection point to the need to assess a more routine approach to testing.