OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate which of the following factors affect the uptake of the combined test (CT) in The Netherlands: women's socio-demographic background, attitude towards Down syndrome, attitude towards termination of pregnancy, counseling process, reimbursement policy, and knowledge on the aim of the CT. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey in the Northwest (NW) and the Northeast (NE) region of The Netherlands. RESULTS: Analyses were based on 820 questionnaires (73% response rate). Women from the NW region opted more often for the CT than women from the NE region (52.1% and 16.5%, respectively, p < 0.001). Women of 36 years and older opted more often for the CT than younger women (59.4% and 28.2%, respectively, p < 0.001). Women's socio-demographic background and their attitude towards Down syndrome and termination of pregnancy (TOP) had contributed independently on CT choice. CONCLUSION: The uptake of the CT in this study is low. The main reason for the low uptake is the relatively positive attitude towards Down syndrome and a negative attitude towards TOP. Moreover, the perception of maternal age as strong predictor of Down syndrome risk and the inequality of access to care, due to the financial threshold for younger women, are likely to affect participation in screening.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate which of the following factors affect the uptake of the combined test (CT) in The Netherlands: women's socio-demographic background, attitude towards Down syndrome, attitude towards termination of pregnancy, counseling process, reimbursement policy, and knowledge on the aim of the CT. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey in the Northwest (NW) and the Northeast (NE) region of The Netherlands. RESULTS: Analyses were based on 820 questionnaires (73% response rate). Women from the NW region opted more often for the CT than women from the NE region (52.1% and 16.5%, respectively, p < 0.001). Women of 36 years and older opted more often for the CT than younger women (59.4% and 28.2%, respectively, p < 0.001). Women's socio-demographic background and their attitude towards Down syndrome and termination of pregnancy (TOP) had contributed independently on CT choice. CONCLUSION: The uptake of the CT in this study is low. The main reason for the low uptake is the relatively positive attitude towards Down syndrome and a negative attitude towards TOP. Moreover, the perception of maternal age as strong predictor of Down syndrome risk and the inequality of access to care, due to the financial threshold for younger women, are likely to affect participation in screening.
Authors: Karuna R M van der Meij; Erik A Sistermans; Merryn V E Macville; Servi J C Stevens; Caroline J Bax; Mireille N Bekker; Caterina M Bilardo; Elles M J Boon; Marjan Boter; Karin E M Diderich; Christine E M de Die-Smulders; Leonie K Duin; Brigitte H W Faas; Ilse Feenstra; Monique C Haak; Mariëtte J V Hoffer; Nicolette S den Hollander; Iris H I M Hollink; Fernanda S Jehee; Maarten F C M Knapen; Angelique J A Kooper; Irene M van Langen; Klaske D Lichtenbelt; Ingeborg H Linskens; Merel C van Maarle; Dick Oepkes; Mijntje J Pieters; G Heleen Schuring-Blom; Esther Sikkel; Birgit Sikkema-Raddatz; Dominique F C M Smeets; Malgorzata I Srebniak; Ron F Suijkerbuijk; Gita M Tan-Sindhunata; A Jeanine E M van der Ven; Shama L van Zelderen-Bhola; Lidewij Henneman; Robert-Jan H Galjaard; Diane Van Opstal; Marjan M Weiss Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2019-11-07 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Rachèl V van Schendel; Johanna H Kleinveld; Wybo J Dondorp; Eva Pajkrt; Danielle R M Timmermans; Kim C A Holtkamp; Margreet Karsten; Anne L Vlietstra; Augusta M A Lachmeijer; Lidewij Henneman Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2014-03-19 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Neeltje M T H Crombag; Marije Lamain-de Ruiter; Anneke Kwee; Peter C J I Schielen; Jozien M Bensing; Gerard H A Visser; Arie Franx; Maria P H Koster Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2017-01-07 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Melissa Hill; Jo-Ann Johnson; Sylvie Langlois; Hyun Lee; Stephanie Winsor; Brigid Dineley; Marisa Horniachek; Faustina Lalatta; Luisa Ronzoni; Angela N Barrett; Henna V Advani; Mahesh Choolani; Ron Rabinowitz; Eva Pajkrt; Rachèl V van Schendel; Lidewij Henneman; Wieke Rommers; Caterina M Bilardo; Paula Rendeiro; Maria João Ribeiro; José Rocha; Ida Charlotte Bay Lund; Olav B Petersen; Naja Becher; Ida Vogel; Vigdis Stefánsdottir; Sigrun Ingvarsdottir; Helga Gottfredsdottir; Stephen Morris; Lyn S Chitty Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2015-11-18 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Janneke T Gitsels-van der Wal; Judith Manniën; Lisanne A Gitsels; Hans S Reinders; Pieternel S Verhoeven; Mohammed M Ghaly; Trudy Klomp; Eileen K Hutton Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2014-07-19 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Janneke T Gitsels-van der Wal; Pieternel S Verhoeven; Judith Manniën; Linda Martin; Hans S Reinders; Evelien Spelten; Eileen K Hutton Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2014-08-09 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Neeltje M T H Crombag; Hennie Boeije; Rita Iedema-Kuiper; Peter C J I Schielen; Gerard H A Visser; Jozien M Bensing Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2016-05-26 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Maurike D de Groot-van der Mooren; Saskia Tamminga; Dick Oepkes; Michel E Weijerman; Martina C Cornel Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2018-01-12 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Rachèl V van Schendel; Adriana Kater-Kuipers; Elsbeth H van Vliet-Lachotzki; Wybo J Dondorp; Martina C Cornel; Lidewij Henneman Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2016-09-13 Impact factor: 2.537