Cargando…

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 rat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Crombag, Neeltje MTH, Vellinga, Ynke E, Kluijfhout, Sandra A, Bryant, Louise D, Ward, Pat A, Iedema-Kuiper, Rita, Schielen, Peter CJI, Bensing, Jozien M, Visser, Gerard HA, Tabor, Ann, Hirst, Janet
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4263059/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25257793
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-437
_version_ 1782348500334280704
author Crombag, Neeltje MTH
Vellinga, Ynke E
Kluijfhout, Sandra A
Bryant, Louise D
Ward, Pat A
Iedema-Kuiper, Rita
Schielen, Peter CJI
Bensing, Jozien M
Visser, Gerard HA
Tabor, Ann
Hirst, Janet
author_facet Crombag, Neeltje MTH
Vellinga, Ynke E
Kluijfhout, Sandra A
Bryant, Louise D
Ward, Pat A
Iedema-Kuiper, Rita
Schielen, Peter CJI
Bensing, Jozien M
Visser, Gerard HA
Tabor, Ann
Hirst, Janet
author_sort Crombag, Neeltje MTH
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4263059
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42630592014-12-12 Explaining variation in Down’s syndrome screening uptake: comparing the Netherlands with England and Denmark using documentary analysis and expert stakeholder interviews Crombag, Neeltje MTH Vellinga, Ynke E Kluijfhout, Sandra A Bryant, Louise D Ward, Pat A Iedema-Kuiper, Rita Schielen, Peter CJI Bensing, Jozien M Visser, Gerard HA Tabor, Ann Hirst, Janet BMC Health Serv Res Research Article 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. BioMed Central 2014-09-25 /pmc/articles/PMC4263059/ /pubmed/25257793 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-437 Text en © 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.
spellingShingle Research Article
Crombag, Neeltje MTH
Vellinga, Ynke E
Kluijfhout, Sandra A
Bryant, Louise D
Ward, Pat A
Iedema-Kuiper, Rita
Schielen, Peter CJI
Bensing, Jozien M
Visser, Gerard HA
Tabor, Ann
Hirst, Janet
Explaining variation in Down’s syndrome screening uptake: comparing the Netherlands with England and Denmark using documentary analysis and expert stakeholder interviews
title Explaining variation in Down’s syndrome screening uptake: comparing the Netherlands with England and Denmark using documentary analysis and expert stakeholder interviews
title_full Explaining variation in Down’s syndrome screening uptake: comparing the Netherlands with England and Denmark using documentary analysis and expert stakeholder interviews
title_fullStr Explaining variation in Down’s syndrome screening uptake: comparing the Netherlands with England and Denmark using documentary analysis and expert stakeholder interviews
title_full_unstemmed Explaining variation in Down’s syndrome screening uptake: comparing the Netherlands with England and Denmark using documentary analysis and expert stakeholder interviews
title_short Explaining variation in Down’s syndrome screening uptake: comparing the Netherlands with England and Denmark using documentary analysis and expert stakeholder interviews
title_sort explaining variation in down’s syndrome screening uptake: comparing the netherlands with england and denmark using documentary analysis and expert stakeholder interviews
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4263059/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25257793
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-437
work_keys_str_mv AT crombagneeltjemth explainingvariationindownssyndromescreeninguptakecomparingthenetherlandswithenglandanddenmarkusingdocumentaryanalysisandexpertstakeholderinterviews
AT vellingaynkee explainingvariationindownssyndromescreeninguptakecomparingthenetherlandswithenglandanddenmarkusingdocumentaryanalysisandexpertstakeholderinterviews
AT kluijfhoutsandraa explainingvariationindownssyndromescreeninguptakecomparingthenetherlandswithenglandanddenmarkusingdocumentaryanalysisandexpertstakeholderinterviews
AT bryantlouised explainingvariationindownssyndromescreeninguptakecomparingthenetherlandswithenglandanddenmarkusingdocumentaryanalysisandexpertstakeholderinterviews
AT wardpata explainingvariationindownssyndromescreeninguptakecomparingthenetherlandswithenglandanddenmarkusingdocumentaryanalysisandexpertstakeholderinterviews
AT iedemakuiperrita explainingvariationindownssyndromescreeninguptakecomparingthenetherlandswithenglandanddenmarkusingdocumentaryanalysisandexpertstakeholderinterviews
AT schielenpetercji explainingvariationindownssyndromescreeninguptakecomparingthenetherlandswithenglandanddenmarkusingdocumentaryanalysisandexpertstakeholderinterviews
AT bensingjozienm explainingvariationindownssyndromescreeninguptakecomparingthenetherlandswithenglandanddenmarkusingdocumentaryanalysisandexpertstakeholderinterviews
AT vissergerardha explainingvariationindownssyndromescreeninguptakecomparingthenetherlandswithenglandanddenmarkusingdocumentaryanalysisandexpertstakeholderinterviews
AT taborann explainingvariationindownssyndromescreeninguptakecomparingthenetherlandswithenglandanddenmarkusingdocumentaryanalysisandexpertstakeholderinterviews
AT hirstjanet explainingvariationindownssyndromescreeninguptakecomparingthenetherlandswithenglandanddenmarkusingdocumentaryanalysisandexpertstakeholderinterviews