Ethnic differences in determinants of participation and non-participation in prenatal screening for Down syndrome: A theoretical framework

Objective To develop a theoretical framework for analysing ethnic differences in determinants of participation and non-participation in prenatal screening for Down syndrome. Methods We applied Weinstein's Precaution Adoption Process (PAP) Model to the decision of whether or not to participate in prenatal screening for Down syndrome. The prenatal screening stage model was specified by reviewing the empirical literature and by data from seven focus group interviews with Dutch, Turkish and Surinamese pregnant women in the Netherlands. Results We identified 11 empirical studies on ethnic differences in determinants of participation and non-participation in prenatal screening for Down syndrome. The focus group interviews showed that almost all stages and determinants in the stage model were relevant in women's decision-making process. However, there were ethnic variations in the relevance of determinants, such as beliefs about personal consequences of having a child with Down syndrome or cultural and religious norms. Discussion The prenatal screening stage model can be applied as a framework to describe the decision-making process of pregnant women from different ethnic backgrounds. It provides scope for developing culturally sensitive, tailored methods to guide pregnant women towards informed decision-making on participation or non-participation in prenatal screening for Down syndrome. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Compromise ultrasound dating policy in maternal serum screening for Down syndrome

Routine ultrasound biometry is the method of choice for gestational dating when screening for Down syndrome. However, it is costly and an alternative policy is to restrict ultrasound to women most likely to have menstrual dating errors. This was evaluated by statistical modelling with parameters from 14 274 women screened between January 1997 and July 2001 using free beta-human chorionic gonadotrophin (free β-hCG), α-fetoprotein (AFP) and unconjugated estriol (uE₃). A total of 12 711 (89%) women had both ultrasound and menstrual gestations, but in 4101 (29%) women either the last menstrual period (LMP) was uncertain or a pill-withdrawal period, or there were irregular or abnormal length cycles. The LMP was not entered in the test request form for a further 1404 (9.8%) women. Routine ultrasound dating yielded a predicted detection rate higher than for menstrual dating by 3.9–7.1%, depending on the marker combination and cut-off. The false-positive rate was reduced by 0.2–1.1%. Selectively scanning the 39% with unreliable dates increased detection by 2.6–4.6%, and reduced the false-positive rate by 0.04–0.6%. Some centres only use the ultrasound estimate of gestation when it differs from the menstrual estimate by more than 7 days. Such a rule reduces the gain in detection rate to 2.5–4.6% for routine ultrasound and 1.7–3.1% with the compromise policy; the false-positive rate reductions are 0.06–0.6% and 0.0–0.3%, respectively. We conclude that if routine ultrasound is not financially and practically feasible, the compromise policy yields a clinically important improvement in screening performance compared to menstrual dating. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Second-trimester prenatal screening markers for Down syndrome in women with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus

Published studies have shown that some serum markers used in screening for Down syndrome tend to be lower among women with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM). On this basis, many screening programmes adjust the marker levels to take account of this difference. Recent studies suggested that the marker levels were not different, and so adjustment may no longer be needed, possibly because of better diabetic control. Data from a prenatal screening programme for Down syndrome were examined to see whether the median values of second-trimester screening markers were still reduced in pregnant women with IDDM. A total of 366 women with IDDM singleton pregnancies without Down syndrome were identified from the screening programme at Barts from 1989 to 2002. After allowing for maternal weight, the median multiples of the median (MoM) for IDDM-unaffected singleton pregnancies were as follows: 0.88 (95% confidence interval 0.84–0.93) for alphafetoprotein (AFP), 0.95 (0.91–0.99) for unconjugated oestriol (uE₃), 0.90 (0.80–1.01) for total human chorionic gonadotrophin (total hCG), 0.98 (0.88–1.08) for free β-hCG, and 0.99 (0.89–1.10) for inhibin-A. The median levels for AFP and uE₃ were statistically significantly lower in pregnant women with IDDM. The other markers were not significantly different in women with and without IDDM. There remains a case for adjusting AFP and uE₃ levels in women with IDDM in prenatal screening programmes for Down syndrome. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Down syndrome maternal serum marker screening after 18 weeks' gestation

Women having access to prenatal care late in pregnancy may still wish to benefit from maternal serum screening for Down syndrome. Therefore, we established reference values for α-feto protein (AFP) and free β-human chorionic gonadotrophin (β-hCG), and assessed the diagnostic value of maternal serum marker screening at 18–35 weeks' gestation based upon a series of 4072 sera from unaffected pregnancies and 118 sera from pregnant women with fetuses affected by Down syndrome. Using a 1/250 risk cut-off, a detection rate of 72.9% (95% CI = 71.5–74.3%) was achieved with a false-positive rate of 7.51% (95% CI = 6.71–8.3%). This was not significantly different from the percentages observed in our 14–17 weeks routine screening (50 596 patients): 71.9% (95% CI = 71.5–72.3%) and 6.48% (95% CI = 6.28–6.68%), respectively. Detection and screen-positive rates were, respectively, 51.3% (95% CI = 35.6–67.0%) and 5.95% (95% CI = 5.12–6.68%) in women aunder 35 years of age, and 84.8% (95% CI = 76.9–92.7%) and 24% (95% CI = 20.7–27.3%) in women aged 35 years and over. In conclusion, maternal serum marker screening is feasible at 18 weeks' gestation and later, which may be of interest in selected cases. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Commentary: The federal ‘Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act’

The recently enacted federal law, the ‘Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act’ (United States Public Law 110–374) seeks to improve opportunities for parents and pregnant women to anticipate and understand the likely life course of children born with Down syndrome and other (unspecified) conditions. The law is in part a response to the continued growth of prenatal screening and testing. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Practice Bulletin 77 recommends that ‘Screening and invasive diagnostic testing for aneuploidies be available to all women who present for prenatal care before 20 weeks of gestation regardless of maternal age.’ Emerging technologies anticipate an era in which the scope of prenatal screening and testing will be much larger than it is today. Inevitably, more women will find themselves facing the hard question of whether to continue or end a pregnancy in which a fetus has been found to have a significant abnormality. While the new federal law is not likely to have a major impact on obstetric practice, it may be a harbinger of renewed wide-scale public debate concerning the ethics of prenatal screening. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.