Reasons for accepting or declining Down syndrome screening in Dutch prospective mothers within the context of national policy and healthcare system characteristics: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Uptake rates for Down syndrome screening in the Netherlands are low compared to other European countries. To investigate the low uptake, we explored women's reasons for participation and possible influences of national healthcare system characteristics. Dutch prenatal care is characterised by an approach aimed at a low degree of medicalisation, with pregnant women initially considered to be at low risk. Prenatal screening for Down syndrome is offered to all women, with a 'right not to know' for women who do not want to be informed on this screening. At the time this study was performed, the test was not reimbursed for women aged 35 and younger. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study to explore reasons for participation and possible influences of healthcare system characteristics. Data were collected via ten semi-structured focus groups with women declining or accepting the offer of Down syndrome screening (n = 46). All focus groups were audio- and videotaped, transcribed verbatim, coded and content analysed. RESULTS: Women declining Down syndrome screening did not consider Down syndrome a condition severe enough to justify termination of pregnancy. Young women declining felt supported in their decision by perceived confirmation of their obstetric caregiver and reassured by system characteristics (costs and age restriction). Women accepting Down syndrome screening mainly wanted to be reassured or be prepared to care for a child with Down syndrome. By weighing up the pros and cons of testing, obstetric caregivers supported young women who accepted in the decision-making process. This was helpful, although some felt the need to defend their decision to accept the test offer due to their young age. For some young women accepting testing, costs were considered a disincentive to participate. CONCLUSIONS: Presentation of prenatal screening affects how the offer is attended to, perceived and utilised. By offering screening with age restriction and additional costs, declining is considered the preferred choice, which might account for low Dutch uptake rates. Autonomous and informed decision-making in Down syndrome screening should be based on the personal interest in knowing the individual risk of having a child with Down syndrome and system characteristics should not influence participation.

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.

Determinants affecting pregnant women's utilization of prenatal screening for Down syndrome: a review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: Uptake rates for Down syndrome screening (DSS) in the Netherlands are low compared with those in Northern European countries (27% versus 61% in the United Kingdom and 90% in Denmark). These differences are unexpected, especially since the countries have similar cultural and social values. METHOD: To analyse factors that underlie differences in uptake we reviewed current literature on individual characteristics and healthcare system factors, which determine potential influential factors on utilization of DSS. RESULTS: Arguments "Against abortion" and "Down syndrome (DS) not severe enough condition to terminate pregnancy" correlated with declining DSS, whereas "Perceived guidance of healthcare professional," "Perceived negative attitude of society towards DS" and "Preparation/Early termination" correlated with accepting DSS. However, the majority of determinants were used both in favour of accepting or declining DSS. CONCLUSIONS: Decision making regarding DSS seems a process with influences on different levels and subtle interactions rather than a dichotomous process. Utilization may also be influenced by the implicit way it is being offered, as an extra option or as part of routine care and how this offer is perceived by the social environment. Finally, national healthcare system characteristics, although underrepresented in the examined studies, may also influence participation in DSS.