Cargando…
Reasons for non-participation in malformation scans in Denmark: a cohort study
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to estimate the proportion of women giving birth in two hospitals in the Region of Southern Denmark who did not attend the malformation scan and to elucidate the reasons for not participating. METHODS: In this register-based descriptive study, we used patient adm...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6001061/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29898683 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-1877-z |
_version_ | 1783331903597707264 |
---|---|
author | Hjort-Pedersen, Karina Olesen, Annette Wind Garne, Ester Sperling, Lene |
author_facet | Hjort-Pedersen, Karina Olesen, Annette Wind Garne, Ester Sperling, Lene |
author_sort | Hjort-Pedersen, Karina |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to estimate the proportion of women giving birth in two hospitals in the Region of Southern Denmark who did not attend the malformation scan and to elucidate the reasons for not participating. METHODS: In this register-based descriptive study, we used patient administration systems to identify women who had given birth at two Danish hospitals between March 2013 and January 2015. We then linked this information with the hospital database for fetal medicine (Astraia) to identify women who did not attend the malformation scan at week 18–20. We reviewed the medical records of these women to validate the data and to identify the reason for non-participation. RESULTS: Of 7690 births, 153 (2%) women did not attend the malformation scan. The main reason for non-participation was a passive deselection (81%). Most of these women were not present in Denmark at the time of the malformation scan (61%) and few women declined (8%). CONCLUSIONS: Less than 2% of a birth cohort in two major hospitals in Denmark did not attend the free offer of a malformation scan. Most of these women (81%) did not actively decide against the malformation scan. Very few (0.2%) declined the malformation scan. Non-attendance is not always due to an active decision made by the pregnant woman. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12884-018-1877-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6001061 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-60010612018-06-26 Reasons for non-participation in malformation scans in Denmark: a cohort study Hjort-Pedersen, Karina Olesen, Annette Wind Garne, Ester Sperling, Lene BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Research Article BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to estimate the proportion of women giving birth in two hospitals in the Region of Southern Denmark who did not attend the malformation scan and to elucidate the reasons for not participating. METHODS: In this register-based descriptive study, we used patient administration systems to identify women who had given birth at two Danish hospitals between March 2013 and January 2015. We then linked this information with the hospital database for fetal medicine (Astraia) to identify women who did not attend the malformation scan at week 18–20. We reviewed the medical records of these women to validate the data and to identify the reason for non-participation. RESULTS: Of 7690 births, 153 (2%) women did not attend the malformation scan. The main reason for non-participation was a passive deselection (81%). Most of these women were not present in Denmark at the time of the malformation scan (61%) and few women declined (8%). CONCLUSIONS: Less than 2% of a birth cohort in two major hospitals in Denmark did not attend the free offer of a malformation scan. Most of these women (81%) did not actively decide against the malformation scan. Very few (0.2%) declined the malformation scan. Non-attendance is not always due to an active decision made by the pregnant woman. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12884-018-1877-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-06-14 /pmc/articles/PMC6001061/ /pubmed/29898683 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-1877-z Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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 Hjort-Pedersen, Karina Olesen, Annette Wind Garne, Ester Sperling, Lene Reasons for non-participation in malformation scans in Denmark: a cohort study |
title | Reasons for non-participation in malformation scans in Denmark: a cohort study |
title_full | Reasons for non-participation in malformation scans in Denmark: a cohort study |
title_fullStr | Reasons for non-participation in malformation scans in Denmark: a cohort study |
title_full_unstemmed | Reasons for non-participation in malformation scans in Denmark: a cohort study |
title_short | Reasons for non-participation in malformation scans in Denmark: a cohort study |
title_sort | reasons for non-participation in malformation scans in denmark: a cohort study |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6001061/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29898683 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-1877-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hjortpedersenkarina reasonsfornonparticipationinmalformationscansindenmarkacohortstudy AT olesenannettewind reasonsfornonparticipationinmalformationscansindenmarkacohortstudy AT garneester reasonsfornonparticipationinmalformationscansindenmarkacohortstudy AT sperlinglene reasonsfornonparticipationinmalformationscansindenmarkacohortstudy |