Evaluating the effectiveness of air quality regulations: A review of accountability studies and frameworks

Assessments of past environmental policies—termed accountability studies—contribute important information to the decision-making process used to review the efficacy of past policies, and subsequently aid in the development of effective new policies. These studies have used a variety of methods that have achieved varying levels of success at linking improvements in air quality and/or health to regulations. The Health Effects Institute defines the air pollution accountability framework as a chain of events that includes the regulation of interest, air quality, exposure/dose, and health outcomes, and suggests that accountability research should address impacts for each of these linkages. Early accountability studies investigated short-term, local regulatory actions (for example, coal use banned city-wide on a specific date or traffic pattern changes made for Olympic Games). Recent studies assessed regulations implemented over longer time and larger spatial scales. Studies on broader scales require accountability research methods that account for effects of confounding factors that increase over time and space. Improved estimates of appropriate baseline levels (sometimes termed “counterfactual”—the expected state in a scenario without an intervention) that account for confounders and uncertainties at each link in the accountability chain will help estimate causality with greater certainty. In the direct accountability framework, researchers link outcomes with regulations using statistical methods that bypass the link-by-link approach of classical accountability. Direct accountability results and methods complement the classical approach. New studies should take advantage of advanced planning for accountability studies, new data sources (such as satellite measurements), and new statistical methods. Evaluation of new methods and data sources is necessary to improve investigations of long-term regulations, and associated uncertainty should be accounted for at each link to provide a confidence estimate of air quality regulation effectiveness. The final step in any accountability is the comparison of results with the proposed benefits of an air quality policy.

Implications: The field of air pollution accountability continues to grow in importance to a number of stakeholders. Two frameworks, the classical accountability chain and direct accountability, have been used to estimate impacts of regulatory actions, and both require careful attention to confounders and uncertainties. Researchers should continue to develop and evaluate both methods as they investigate current and future air pollution regulations.     

Association between low fetal fraction in cell-free DNA screening and fetal chromosomal aberrations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature on low fetal fraction (LFF) in cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening and the risk of fetal chromosomal aberrations.

Method

We searched articles published between January 2010 and May 2021 in PubMed and EMBASE databases. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2.

Results

Twenty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising data of 243,700 singleton pregnancies. Compared to normal fetal fraction, LFF was associated with a higher risk of trisomy 13 (OR 5.99 [3.61–9.95], I ² of heterogeneity = 0%, n = 22 studies), trisomy 18 (OR 4.46 [3.07–6.47], I ² = 0%, n = 22 studies), monosomy X (OR 5.88 [2.34–14.78], I ² = 18%, n = 10 studies), and triploidy (OR 36.39 [9.83–134.68], I ² = 61%, n = 6 studies), but not trisomy 21 (OR 1.25 [0.76–2.03], I ² = 36%, n = 23 studies). LFF was also associated with a higher risk of various other types of fetal chromosomal aberrations (OR 4.00 [1.78–9.00], I ² = 2%, n = 11 studies). Meta-analysis of proportions showed that absolute rates of fetal chromosomal aberrations ranged between 1% and 2% in women with LFF. A limitation of this review is the potential risk of ascertainment bias because of differences in outcome assessment between pregnancies with LFF and those with normal fetal fraction. Heterogeneity in population characteristics or applied technologies across included studies may not have been fully addressed.

Conclusion

An LFF test result in cfDNA screening is associated with an increased risk of fetal trisomy 13, trisomy 18, monosomy X, and triploidy, but not trisomy 21. Further research is needed to assess the association between LFF and other specific types of fetal chromosomal aberrations.     

International perspectives on the implementation of reproductive carrier screening

Reproductive carrier screening started in some countries in the 1970s for hemoglobinopathies and Tay-Sachs disease. Cystic fibrosis carrier screening became possible in the late 1980s and with technical advances, screening of an ever increasing number of genes has become possible. The goal of carrier screening is to inform people about their risk of having children with autosomal recessive and X-linked recessive disorders, to allow for informed decision making about reproductive options. The consequence may be a decrease in the birth prevalence of these conditions, which has occurred in several countries for some conditions. Different programs target different groups (high school, premarital, couples before conception, couples attending fertility clinics, and pregnant women) as does the governance structure (public health initiative and user pays). Ancestry-based offers of screening are being replaced by expanded carrier screening panels with multiple genes that is independent of ancestry. This review describes screening in Australia, Cyprus, Israel, Italy, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. It provides an insight into the enormous variability in how reproductive carrier screening is offered across the globe. This largely relates to geographical variation in carrier frequencies of genetic conditions and local health care, financial, cultural, and religious factors.     

A cross-country comparison of pregnant women's decision-making and perspectives when opting for non-invasive prenatal testing in the Netherlands and Belgium

Background

The Netherlands and Belgium have been among the first countries to offer non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as a first-tier screening test. Despite similarities, differences exist in counseling modalities and test uptake. This study explored decision-making and perspectives of pregnant women who opted for NIPT in both countries.

Methods

A questionnaire study was performed among pregnant women in the Netherlands (NL) (n = 587) and Belgium (BE) (n = 444) opting for NIPT, including measures on informed choice, personal and societal perspectives on trisomy 21, 18 and 13 and pregnancy termination.

Results

Differences between Dutch and Belgian women were shown in the level of informed choice (NL: 83% vs. BE: 59%, p < 0.001), intention to terminate the pregnancy in case of confirmed trisomy 21 (NL: 51% vs. BE: 62%, p = 0.003) and trisomy 13/18 (NL: 80% vs. BE: 73%, p = 0.020). More Belgian women considered trisomy 21 a severe condition (NL: 64% vs. BE: 81%, p < 0.001). Belgian women more frequently indicated that they believed parents are judged for having a child with trisomy 21 (BE: 42% vs. NL: 16%, p < 0.001) and were less positive about quality of care and support for children with trisomy 21 (BE: 23% vs. NL: 62%, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Differences in women's decision-making regarding NIPT and the conditions screened for may be influenced by counseling aspects and country-specific societal and cultural contexts.     

Factors involved in the decision to decline prenatal screening with noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT)

Objective

To investigate factors involved in the decision to decline prenatal screening with noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT).

Method

A questionnaire study was conducted among 219 pregnant women in the Netherlands who had declined prenatal screening with NIPT (TRIDENT-2 study). Respondents were selectively recruited from three hospitals and 19 midwifery practices, primarily located in or near socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods. 44.3% of the respondents were of non-Western ethnic origin and 64.4% were religious.

Results

Most respondents (77.2%) found the decision to decline NIPT easy to make, and 59.8% had already made the decision before information about NIPT was offered. These respondents were more often religious, multigravida, and had adequate health literacy. The main reasons to decline NIPT were “I would never terminate my pregnancy” (57.1%) and “every child is welcome” (56.2%). For 16.9% of respondents, the out-of-pocket costs (175 euros) played a role in the decision, and the women in this group were more often nonreligious, primigravida, and had inadequate health literacy.

Conclusion

The primary factors involved in the decision to decline NIPT were related to personal values and beliefs, consistent with autonomous choice. Out-of-pocket costs of NIPT hinder equal access for some pregnant women.